All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.
Sponsored content

Thailand updates franchising guidelines

Sponsored by

tillekegibbins.png
buddha-5410319.jpg

Sher Hann Chua of Tilleke & Gibbins Thailand discusses the latest revision to Thailand’s guidelines on franchising, focusing on the changes to the first-refusal requirement

Before the issuance in late 2019 of the Trade Competition Commission of Thailand’s Guidelines on Unfair Trade Practices in Franchise Businesses, which took effect in February 2020, Thai law made little mention of franchising as a business model – despite the great popularity of franchising in the country.

The guidelines, which were issued under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), partly made up for the absence of a single, codified franchising law in the country. They offered valuable direction on how franchisors and franchisees should operate in compliance with Thai law.

One of the most significant conditions introduced by the original guidelines in February 2020 was a requirement for franchisors to provide a right of first refusal to their existing franchisees before opening a new franchise outlet within the current franchisees’ operating vicinity.

Revisions to the guidelines

An update to the guidelines addressing the right of first refusal was issued in August 2020. Most recently, a second update was announced on July 13 2021. It was published in the Government Gazette on August 19 2021, and came into force on the following day.

The August 2021 update further revised this provision, and the updated guidelines now adopt a less restrictive approach for franchisors in relation to this first-refusal requirement.

Under the updated guidelines, a franchisor who decides to open a new outlet, whether it will be operated by the franchisor or by another franchisee or person, must notify the existing franchisee located in closest proximity to the intended location. They must also provide the franchisee with a right of first refusal for a period of 30 days.

However, the franchisor does not have to provide the closest franchisee with a right of first refusal if the franchisee’s existing performance does not meet the franchisor’s criteria as specified and communicated to the franchisee in advance.

In determining what constitutes “closest proximity”, consideration is given to the demand for the goods and services, the geographical area, and the competition in the market.

If a franchisor cannot grant rights to operate a new outlet to an existing franchisee due to existing area development rights or other contractual obligations, the franchisor must consider granting the right to open the new outlet to other suitable franchisees based on reasonable commercial justifications.

Other requirements

Franchisors should also be mindful of all other requirements stipulated in the guidelines, such as the mandatory precontractual disclosure requirements.

Under these rules, franchisors must disclose the following information to prospective franchisees before entering into a franchise agreement:

  • Information on applicable payments and expenses relating to the franchise, such as franchise fees, royalties, marketing expenses, training costs, costs of mandatory equipment, and materials, as well as their respective calculation methods, payment details, and conditions for reimbursement;

  • Information on the franchise business model, including matters relating to assistance, training, and advisory services to be provided by the franchisor, as well as information regarding the existing and future branches (and their respective locations) operated by other franchisees in the vicinity, and information on sales and promotion;

  • Information on IP rights, such as trademarks, patents, and copyright, including their respective terms of protection, and their licensing scope and restrictions; and

  • Information on the renewal, amendment, cancellation, and termination of the franchise agreement.

Additionally, the guidelines prohibit franchisors from engaging without justification in trade practices deemed capable of causing damage to franchisees under the Trade Competition Act, such as the imposition of purchasing restrictions and other restrictive conditions, and the stipulation of discriminatory conditions among franchisees.

Need to comply

Non-compliance with the guidelines and the subsequent amendments, including those introduced in the most recent update, may subject business operators to penalties under the Trade Competition Act. These include administrative orders and fines, and civil claims for damages.

Hence, franchisors in Thailand should ensure that their franchise agreement templates and disclosure documents to be used in the country are in full compliance with all local requirements, including the requirements imposed under the updated guidelines.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Sources say that the exam format should be revamped to test aptitude rather than rote learning and increase accessibility
The Italian firm that built the UPC case management system plans to launch a full training course in October
ITC counsel explain why companies will continue to bring trade secret complaints to the venue and talk about how to tackle challenges
Google and Sonos patent war continues; CNIPA finishes first administrative patent trials; Oppo halts German sales after Nokia wins; Chugai settles Fresenius suit; Taylor Swift claims she never heard Playas Gon’ Play; AI can’t be inventor, says Federal Circuit
Brands and retailers should educate their marketing departments and get help from their sales teams so private label products don’t become a major problem
The UK government wants to stop local tech going to China, but tech transfer offices often have few options
Hubertus Schacht of the Munich Regional Court shares his thoughts on German SEP trends and their influence on the UPC
Trademark counsel applaud the EUIPO’s new filing system but reveal it has come with teething issues
The executive vice president of partnerships and acquisitions at the NPE explains how his company’s deal with Intel came to be
South Korean lawyers welcome the trademark guidelines but say the appellate board, courts, and other IP offices may not necessarily agree with the KIPO
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree