In the case of Pronuptia, it was decided that the franchisee must be able to take the necessary measures to maintain the identity and reputation of the network bearing its name or symbol. The provisions necessary for this purpose do not constitute restrictions of competition within the meaning of Article 101(1) TFEU. In this respect, a franchise agreement in principle allows the following provisions: This glossary complies with the list of keywords used by the Concurrences search engine. Each keyword is automatically updated by the latest EU and national jurisdictions of the e-Competitions Bulletin and Competitions Review. The definitions are taken from DG COMP`s glossary on terms used in EU competition policy (© the European Union, 2002) and the OECD`s Industry Organisation Glossary on Economics and Competition Law (OECD ©, 1993). To preserve the network`s identity and reputation, it is important for franchisees to ensure that franchisee sites offer the same experience and sense of consumption as a franchisee`s online store. Therefore, a franchisee may naturally require its franchisees to meet certain quality standards for the use of their websites. However, the criteria for online sales must comply with the criteria applicable to sales resulting from the franchisee`s activity. This does not mean that the online criteria should be identical to those applicable to offline sales, but they should pursue the same objectives and achieve comparable results. In addition, the difference between the criteria must be justified by the different nature of those two distribution methods34 In addition, a franchisee may require its franchisees to have at least one stationary activity or showroom as a precondition for membership as franchisees35. 36 It is important that internet sales should be regarded as passive sales and cannot therefore be limited even if they take place in the exclusive territory of another franchisee.37 The delicate issue of transferring a franchise agreement to a buyer in the context of collective proceedings against a franchisee is the subject of a decision of the Limoges Court of Appeal of 28 June 2006. January 2019. Such a question is very relevant in the context of (…) In 2007, BMC, a franchisee, entered into a nine-year franchise agreement with CDFI for the operation of a bakery.
. . .