@ccueil / actualité / jurisprudence / chroniques / internautes / professionnels / universitaires

Heading: internauts
Key words: distribution, franchise, competition, commerce, electronic.
Reference: Richard SALIS, "Web-store deemed equivalent to brick-and-mortar store", Juriscom.net, January 10, 2001
First publication: Juriscom.net

Version française


Web-store deemed equivalent to brick-and-mortar store

In what many jurists believe to be the first ruling on the legal implications for a company to use its Web site to directly compete with its  franchisees, an arbitration panel ruled in September that Drug Emporium Inc. was in violation of its franchise agreement and must halt all sales to its franchisee's customers via its online store.

Richard Salis,
Law student, University of Montreal


According to the American Arbitration Association the franchiser Drug Emporium Inc. (“DEI”) and its subsidiary Drug Emporium.com, (“DE.com”) are in breach of their franchise agreement with their Drug Emporium franchisees, and are thus no longer allowed to sell products over the Internet within the franchisees’ exclusive territories. The arbitration panel was asked by the franchisees, the Claimants in the case, to reside over whether the definition of the term “drug store”, as outlined in the franchise agreement, applies to the DEI’s online enterprise, DE.com (the respondents).

The Claimants argued that their franchiser’s online sales unlawfully infringed on their exclusive territory which was guaranteed in their respective franchise agreements. As a Web site, DE.com can naturally be accessed and exploited by online customers in any delineated market nationwide.  The Claimants’ legal counsel affirmed that “When franchisees are given exclusive territories to conduct their store operations, and pay substantial royalties to obtain support from their franchisers, they do not expect to compete with their franchisers”.

The Respondents maintained the position that the franchisees’ arguments are not legally applicable in this case.  The respondents advocated that DE.com is a virtual store that resides in a computer and is thus not a “drug store”, a physical enterprise as  was defined in the contract agreement.  As a consequence, the territorial exclusivity granted to a “drug store” franchisee neither applies to DE.com nor can such a virtual store be at fault for any territorial encroachment.

In their decision, the arbitration panel concluded that evidence demonstrate that the respondents violated their franchise agreements.  First, by marketing their Web site as a “full service online drugstore” and “your neighborhood pharmacy for twenty years”, a logical inference could be made regarding the nature of DE.com.  Moreover, the respondents themselves registered DE.com as a “drugstore” in its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Second, the panel concluded that DEI demonstrated bad faith towards their franchisees.  The arbitration panel said that in “attempting to build market share by offering special sales at prices that vastly undercut prices available at the [franchisees’] .  In addition, during negotiations to sell DE.com to a third party, DEI’s refusal to “include a contractual provision to require the purchase to be subject to this panel’s ruling lead to the inference that the intention is to exploit the [chain’s trademark] with even greater zeal.”

The implications of this case has drawn considerable attention from the legal community. Michael Dady,  the lawyer who represented the  franchisees, believes that the arbitrator’s decision will ensure that franchisees continue to benefit from the rights guaranteed by their respective franchise agreements. “Drug Emporium franchisees have had for over twenty years exclusive rights to their franchiser’s trademark” Dady explains. “Suddenly however, their exclusive rights were  taken away”. Dady believes that the arbitrators intention was to affirm that the franchisers cannot seize these exclusive rights without consenting its franchisees first.

Dady is quick to illustrate that his franchisee clients are not typically against having their franchisers find new and innovative ways of relaying information, products and services to customers.  In fact , Dady explains, franchisees would participate in new forms of Internet marketing, so long as franchisees could righfully profit from sales in their territories, as contractually guaranteed. Rather than implementing such marketing policies at the expense of franchisee sales, Dady said that his aim is “to negotiate agreements with franchisers that would allow consumers to benefit, all the while not harming the franchisees in the process”.

Andrew C. Seldon, a member of the Minneapolis firm Briggs and Morgan and former chair of the American Bar Association Forum on Franchising, sees Internet encroachment as one of the most important issues facing the franchising industry. Seldon claims that as existing franchise agreements long predate e-commerce, such agreements will increasingly be examined in an effort to resolve problems online that the contracts were never intended to address. Therefore, in regards to all pre-Web franchise agreements, Seldon notes that this “decision underlines the importance of addressing and resolving the legal issues of Internet marketing prior to any  marketing program being implemented.

In regard to whether future legislation is needed to combat franchise Internet encroachment, Dady answered that such regulation may indeed be required. Dady suspects that “an Internet legislation, or a generic legislation that would apply to Internet encroachment is more likely develop…  if franchisees continue to get hurt, all the while not being able to find a remedy through the courts or arbitration”. 

The Drug Emporium arbitration ruling  is one of many cases where the existing legislation is found ill-equipped to resolve Internet franchise encroachment.  Although this case was resolved, it underscores a more critical problem for lawmakers as the evolution of technology continues to outpace our current legal system.

R.S.

Links :

>American Arbitral Association decision,
<http://www.juriscom.net/txt/jurisus/ce/aaa20000902.htm> ;

>Stuart Gittleman, « Franchisees Win Landmark Internet Arbitration Ruling », September 12, 2000, Law.com
<http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=
law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZB30QM0DC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0
>.


See also on Juriscom.net :

>Le commerce électronique en toute franchise ? (Chroniques francophones),
de Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse ;
>Affaire Parfumsnet (Professionnels)
de Yann Dietrich et Alexandre Menais ;
>Réseau de distribution et vente sur Internet (Professionnels), 
de Yann Dietrich et Alexandre Menais ;
>Électrochoc pour le commerce électronique (Internautes),
de Lionel Thoumyre ;
>Comment concilier la distribution sélective et Internet ? (Professionnels), 
de Thibault Verbiest ;
>La distribution sélective à l'épreuve du commerce électronique (Professionnels),
de Yann Dietrich et Alexandre Menais.

 

Juriscom.net est une revue juridique créée et éditée par Lionel Thoumyre
Copyright © 1997-2001 Juriscom.net / Copyright © 2000 LexUM