Franchisee Compensation Claim by Analogy with Section 89b HGB

It remains unresolved — as of early 2018 — whether franchisees may be entitled to compensation claims by analogy with section 89b HGB. In light of the court decisions handed down in recent years, there appears to be little room for such compensation claims. For example, in the case of an “anonymous mass-market business” conducted by the franchisee, a compensation claim was rejected from the outset (Federal Court of Justice, VII ZR 109/13). The Higher Regional Court of Hamm reached a corresponding decision (OLG Hamm, 18 U 35/13). The so-called “Joop!” decision of 29 April 2010 concerning a trademark licence agreement (Federal Court of Justice, I ZR 3/09) may also be interpreted, with regard to franchise relationships, as meaning that compensation claims can be considered only if and to the extent that a franchisee distributes products manufactured or supplied by the franchisor.

However, the final word has not yet been spoken. As of early 2018, the Federal Court of Justice has not yet decided whether, and if so under what conditions, franchisees may be entitled to post-contractual compensation claims.
The matter therefore remains an interesting one.