Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement
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

A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library
Commissioner Hamano Koichi shares his vision for the JPO and explains that IP offices must promote innovation that drives social change
The Asia-Pacific awards research cycle has now begun – don’t miss on this opportunity be recognised in 2023
The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales
Safety standards wouldn’t lose copyright protection when named in law, so long as they were accessible for free online
In-house tech sources say Amgen v Sanofi has the potential to stifle their prosecution and litigation strategies if SCOTUS’s decision is too broad
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Federal Circuit said tech firms can challenge the way the USPTO implemented Fintiv, but that won’t mean much for practitioners, say counsel
The England and Wales High Court handed down one of the most hotly anticipated FRAND rulings for some time
Funders discuss different IP portfolio funding options and how they decide whether to offer preferential terms and pricing