Thailand updates franchising guidelines
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
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 winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article