Franchise agreements, while offering lucrative opportunities for business expansion, are legal minefields that require precision, foresight, and an unwavering strategic approach. The franchisor-franchisee relationship, if not meticulously structured, can quickly descend into disputes over intellectual property rights, exclusivity clauses, financial obligations, and termination rights.
At the core of every franchise dispute lies the question of contractual clarity. The Contract Act, 1872, being the backbone of all franchise agreements in Pakistan, dictates that the rights and obligations of both parties must be explicitly stated. Ambiguous clauses or vaguely defined obligations are breeding grounds for litigation. If you are a franchisor, your primary concern should be ensuring that the agreement grants you maximum control over branding, quality assurance, and operational compliance. A weakly drafted agreement that fails to impose enforceable post-termination obligations could allow a former franchisee to continue operating under your goodwill, potentially eroding your brand’s integrity. If you are a franchisee, you must scrutinise any clauses that unduly restrict your competitive rights, impose disproportionate penalties, or grant unilateral termination powers to the franchisor.
The Specific Relief Act, 1877 plays a pivotal role in franchise litigation. If the dispute revolves around wrongful termination or non-performance of contractual obligations, specific performance of the contract may be sought. However, courts in Pakistan are reluctant to grant specific performance in commercial contracts unless monetary compensation is inadequate. This means that if a franchisor unlawfully terminates an agreement, the franchisee may have a stronger claim for damages rather than reinstatement. The Lahore High Court, in cases such as 2021 CLC 639, has demonstrated that courts prioritise enforceability over business ethics, favouring clear-cut legal rights over moral arguments.
One of the most hotly contested issues in franchise disputes is the misuse of trademarks and proprietary content. A franchisee who continues to use the franchisor’s branding post-termination without permission is liable for passing off and intellectual property infringement under the Trademark Ordinance, 2001. The Supreme Court has consistently upheld that brand identity and goodwill remain the absolute property of the franchisor unless explicitly transferred. However, if the franchise agreement does not contain robust trademark protection clauses, a franchisee could exploit legal loopholes to justify continued use, leading to costly litigation. The best legal strategy in such cases is injunctive relief coupled with a swift claim for damages, preventing the franchisee from unlawfully benefiting from the brand’s reputation.
For litigants engaged in jurisdictional battles, territorial rights and forum selection clauses in franchise agreements can be the deciding factor. Under 2022 CLC 941 (Islamabad), courts have ruled that parties may contractually designate an exclusive jurisdiction for resolving disputes, and such clauses are binding unless proven to be unconscionable. If a dispute arises in a jurisdiction unfavourable to you, an aggressive legal approach would involve challenging the jurisdiction based on the Competition Act, 2010, especially in cases involving anti-competitive restrictions or market dominance abuses. Bringing the matter before the Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) may provide strategic leverage, particularly if the franchisor’s conduct can be framed as unfair market manipulation.
Another tactical consideration is the use of arbitration clauses. While arbitration is generally perceived as a cost-effective and efficient dispute resolution mechanism, it can be a double-edged sword. If you are a franchisee entering into a contract with a foreign franchisor, beware of arbitration clauses mandating dispute resolution in a foreign jurisdiction under UNCITRAL or ICC rules. Enforcing an arbitral award in Pakistan under the Arbitration Act, 1940 can be a lengthy and unpredictable process, especially if the award contradicts local public policy. A prudent legal strategy would involve negotiating for domestic arbitration or, if already bound by an unfavourable arbitration clause, seeking to challenge its enforceability in Pakistani courts.
The power dynamic between franchisors and franchisees is often skewed in favour of the franchisor, but this imbalance can be neutralised through proactive legal structuring, calculated litigation tactics, and a clear understanding of judicial precedents. If you are a franchisor, your primary objective should be to limit liability, maintain brand control, and enforce contractual obligations with minimal legal friction. If you are a franchisee, your goal should be to challenge any oppressive contractual terms, defend your operational autonomy, and maximise financial compensation in case of a dispute.
Ultimately, franchise litigation is not just about enforcing legal rights—it is a game of strategy, leverage, and relentless advocacy. Success lies not only in what is written in the contract but in how effectively you wield the law to advance your position.
What are Franchise Agreements?
Franchise agreements in Pakistan serve as pivotal instruments for facilitating business expansion and economic collaboration between local entrepreneurs and established brands. These agreements allow franchisors to grant franchisees the right to operate under their established trade name, utilise their proprietary business models, and benefit from the goodwill associated with their intellectual property. In return, franchisees typically pay franchise fees or royalties while adhering to the operational standards set forth by the franchisor.
The legal framework for franchise agreements in Pakistan is primarily rooted in the Contract Act, 1872, alongside supplementary laws like the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and intellectual property legislation such as the Trademark Ordinance, 2001. Despite their structured nature, franchise agreements are prone to disputes, which often arise due to ambiguities in contractual terms, non-compliance with obligations, or disagreements over intellectual property rights.
Common disputes include breaches of exclusivity clauses, wrongful termination of agreements, conflicts over franchise fees or royalties, and misuse of proprietary content or trademarks. Additionally, disputes over the scope of territorial rights, post-termination obligations, and anti-competitive practices further complicate the franchisor-franchisee relationship. The resolution of these disputes requires careful interpretation of contract provisions and adherence to legal principles, often involving civil courts, arbitration, or specialised forums such as the Competition Commission of Pakistan for cases of market dominance or unfair trade practices.
Franchise agreements, while offering immense business potential, demand meticulous drafting and compliance to avoid conflicts and ensure mutual benefit for both franchisors and franchisees.
Applicable Law for Franchise Agreements and Disputes in Pakistan:
- Contract Act, 1872:
- Franchise agreements in Pakistan primarily fall under the purview of the Contract Act, 1872. The Act governs the formation, performance, and enforcement of contracts, including clauses on free consent, lawful consideration, breach of contract, and remedies. Relevant sections include those on performance (Section 37), breach (Sections 73-75), and voidability (Section 19) .
- Competition Act, 2010:
- The Competition Act may also apply to franchise agreements to ensure that terms do not amount to anti-competitive practices, such as unfair restraints on trade or monopolistic conduct.
- Specific Relief Act, 1877:
- This Act is relevant for enforcing specific performance of contractual obligations, such as when one party seeks to compel the other to fulfil their contractual duties.
- Intellectual Property Laws:
- Trademark Ordinance, 2001, and Copyright Ordinance, 1962, play a significant role when disputes involve misuse of brand identity, intellectual property, or proprietary content integral to the franchise model.
- Customised Franchise Contracts:
- Franchise-specific agreements, drafted in compliance with local laws, dictate rights and obligations between franchisors and franchisees. These contracts often include arbitration clauses or jurisdictional provisions to resolve disputes.
Forums for Dispute Resolution:
- Civil Courts:
- Most franchise disputes, grounded in contractual matters, are initiated in civil courts. The District Courts or High Courts (depending on the value of the claim) would have jurisdiction.
- Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP):
- Disputes relating to anti-competitive practices, restrictive trade practices, or abuse of market dominance can be brought before the CCP.
- Intellectual Property Tribunals:
- For issues regarding trademark or copyright infringements, parties may approach IP tribunals under the relevant intellectual property laws.
- Arbitration:
- If the franchise agreement contains an arbitration clause, disputes may be resolved through arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. International arbitration rules, such as UNCITRAL, may also be applicable if the agreement specifies.
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR):
- Mediation or conciliation may also be utilised where provided for in the agreement or if both parties consent.
- Specialised Forums (if relevant):
- In case of a foreign franchise, the jurisdiction or governing law agreed upon in the franchise contract may necessitate recourse to forums outside Pakistan or specialised tribunals.
Q & A on Franchise Agreements in Pakistan
Q. What is the legal definition of a franchise under Pakistani law, and how is it interpreted in case law?
A: A franchise is defined as a special privilege or right granted by a franchisor to a franchisee, permitting the latter to use the franchisor’s business model, trademark, and system for a fee. As elucidated in 2002 CLD 77 (Lahore High Court), a franchise agreement is a contract that creates a legal relationship where the franchisee operates under the brand name of the franchisor. It is considered a specialised privilege, not inherently available to all citizens, and becomes irrevocable unless expressly stated otherwise in the contract.
Q. How do courts determine the enforceability of restraint clauses in franchise agreements?
A: Courts assess whether restraint clauses are reasonable and operate during the currency of the agreement without creating undue hardships. In 2006 CLD 210 (Lahore High Court), the court upheld a restraint clause in a sole distribution agreement as it was not unilateral, operated within the agreement’s duration, and did not constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Q. Are franchise agreements treated as commercial contracts under Pakistani law?
A: Yes, franchise agreements are recognised as commercial contracts. The Lahore High Court in 2024 PLD 421 considered disputes arising from franchise agreements to fall within the ambit of commercial courts as they involve significant economic interests and business operations.
Q. What factors influence the jurisdiction of courts in franchise agreement disputes?
A: Jurisdiction is determined by the agreement’s terms and the locations of the parties involved. In 2022 CLC 941 (Islamabad), the High Court held that parties could confer exclusive jurisdiction to specific courts, which becomes binding. The courts where the defendant operates or where the agreement’s subject matter lies also hold jurisdiction.
Q. What is the relationship between a franchisee and franchisor regarding intellectual property?
A: The franchisee operates under the franchisor’s brand and trademarks, as highlighted in 2021 CLC 639. The agreement typically includes provisions protecting the franchisor’s intellectual property and the franchisee’s limited rights to use it during the franchise term.
Q. How does Pakistani law address disputes over goodwill in franchise agreements?
A: Goodwill remains with the franchisor unless explicitly transferred. In 2002 CLD 706 (Lahore High Court), the court emphasised that using the franchisor’s name post-agreement termination without proper authorisation constitutes unfair competition and passing off, actionable under tort law.
Q. Can a franchisee unilaterally terminate a franchise agreement?
A: Termination depends on the agreement’s terms. Unilateral termination without cause or compliance with contractual conditions can lead to legal action, as seen in 2003 SCMR 429, where the court examined the consequences of abrupt terminations impacting franchisor rights.
Q. Are franchise fees taxable under Pakistani law?
A: Yes, franchise fees are taxable. In 2014 PTD 1428 (Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal), the court clarified that franchise fees fall within the purview of federal excise duty, as they constitute payments for using franchisor intellectual property and systems.
Q. What remedies are available for breaches of franchise agreements?
A: Remedies include specific performance, damages, and injunctions. For instance, in 2021 CLC 639, the court allowed the plaintiff to seek specific performance and injunctive relief to enforce franchise rights.
Q. How do Pakistani courts handle overlapping claims of trespass and franchise rights?
A: Courts determine the contractual nature of franchise agreements and distinguish between contractual breaches and trespass. In 2022 CLC 941, the court ruled that rights to access land under a franchise agreement stemmed from the agreement and that absent the agreement, such access could constitute trespass.
Q. What role does the Specific Relief Act play in franchise disputes?
A: The Act provides grounds for specific performance or injunctive relief in franchise disputes. Under 2010 CLC 1843, the court denied injunctions where monetary compensation was adequate and the agreement was not specifically enforceable.
Q. How is the termination of franchise agreements regulated under Pakistani law?
A: Termination must follow agreed procedures. Courts assess the termination’s validity against contractual terms and the franchisor-franchisee relationship, as seen in 2010 CLC 1843.
Q. Can a franchisor impose post-termination restrictions on franchisees?
A: Reasonable post-termination restrictions may be enforceable if they protect legitimate business interests. However, overly broad restraints may be deemed void under 2006 CLD 210.
Q. Are arbitration clauses in franchise agreements enforceable?
A: Yes, arbitration clauses are enforceable if they comply with the Arbitration Act, 1940. In 2002 CLD 706, the court upheld arbitration as the primary mechanism for resolving disputes under the agreement.
Q What is the legal definition of a franchise under Pakistani law, and how is it interpreted in case law?
A: Under Pakistani law, a franchise is typically understood as a contractual relationship where one party (the franchisor) grants another (the franchisee) the right to operate under the franchisor’s brand name, business model, and trademarks. This privilege enables the franchisee to use the franchisor’s established business identity and operational system in exchange for a fee or royalties.
In 2002 CLD 77 (Lahore High Court), the court defined a franchise as a “special privilege” conferred upon the franchisee, which is not inherently available to all individuals or entities. The judgment further clarifies that this relationship is established through a contractual agreement that becomes irrevocable unless specifically stated otherwise. This irrevocability, coupled with the exclusivity of the arrangement, underscores the franchise’s nature as a unique form of contractual privilege, one that carries substantial commercial and legal obligations.
The court’s interpretation aligns with the broader international understanding of franchise agreements as instruments of economic integration, combining intellectual property rights, operational expertise, and brand equity into a legally enforceable framework. This case establishes a foundation for recognising franchise agreements as a distinct legal entity requiring precise drafting and adherence to contractual obligations.
Q. How do courts determine the enforceability of restraint clauses in franchise agreements?
A: Restraint clauses, often included to protect the franchisor’s business interests, are subject to judicial scrutiny for reasonableness and proportionality. In 2006 CLD 210 (Lahore High Court), the court examined a sole distribution agreement containing mutual exclusivity clauses. The franchise agreement prohibited the franchisor from engaging with other agents during the contract’s term and similarly restricted the franchisee from dealing with competing goods.
The court upheld these clauses, emphasising that they were not unreasonably one-sided and operated only during the agreement’s duration. It was further noted that global trade relies heavily on such contractual arrangements, and their enforceability depends on ensuring they do not constitute undue restraint of trade.
This case demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to uphold restraint clauses as long as they are carefully tailored, operate within the contract’s duration, and do not create an unreasonable burden on either party. Franchise agreements often include such provisions to safeguard the franchisor’s goodwill and operational integrity, but overreach can render these clauses void under public policy considerations.
Q. Are franchise agreements treated as commercial contracts under Pakistani law?
A: Franchise agreements are unequivocally treated as commercial contracts in Pakistan, falling under the jurisdiction of commercial courts established to address business disputes. The Lahore High Court in 2024 PLD 421 explicitly held that disputes arising from franchise agreements involve significant commercial interests and operational complexities, warranting classification as commercial cases.
This judgment is particularly significant in the context of the Punjab Commercial Courts Ordinance, 2021 (since repealed), as it emphasised the necessity of commercial courts in handling such matters. The case also clarifies that notification No. 6032 DDJ/DR(PD&IT), dated 28.04.2020, provided the legal foundation for treating franchise disputes as commercial cases, irrespective of subsequent legislative changes.
This classification ensures expedited adjudication under specialised judicial mechanisms, recognising the franchise agreement’s pivotal role in fostering business growth and economic activity.
Q. What factors influence the jurisdiction of courts in franchise agreement disputes?
A: Jurisdiction in franchise disputes is influenced by both the agreement’s explicit terms and the locations of the parties or subject matter involved. In 2022 CLC 941 (Islamabad), the court addressed a dispute over the cancellation of a franchise agreement. The agreement specified exclusive jurisdiction for disputes in a particular location, and the court held that such clauses, when mutually agreed upon, bind the parties.
The court also considered the operational realities of the franchisor and franchisee, including the locations of their business activities and offices. This dual approach ensures that jurisdiction aligns with both the contract’s terms and practical considerations. The case highlights the importance of clear jurisdictional clauses in franchise agreements to minimise forum disputes and ensure predictability in litigation.
Q. What is the relationship between a franchisee and franchisor regarding intellectual property?
A: Intellectual property rights are central to the franchise relationship. The franchisor retains ownership of trademarks, trade secrets, and operational methodologies, while the franchisee is granted limited rights to use these assets during the franchise term. This dynamic was evident in 2021 CLC 639, where the court reinforced the franchisor’s exclusive rights over its brand and operational system.
The judgment underscored that any unauthorised use of the franchisor’s intellectual property post-agreement termination constitutes a breach of contract and may lead to legal action. This arrangement ensures that the franchisor’s brand equity and operational integrity are protected, while the franchisee benefits from the established goodwill and market presence.
Q. How does Pakistani law address disputes over goodwill in franchise agreements?
A: Goodwill is generally considered the franchisor’s property unless explicitly transferred. In 2002 CLD 706 (Lahore High Court), the court dealt with a dispute where the franchisee continued using the franchisor’s name after terminating the agreement. The court ruled that such actions amounted to passing off and constituted an unfair trade practice.
The judgment highlighted that goodwill, built through the franchisor’s efforts and reputation, remains their exclusive property unless the franchise agreement states otherwise. Franchisees cannot claim ownership over goodwill merely through their association with the franchisor’s brand, ensuring the franchisor’s business integrity and intellectual property rights are upheld.
At Josh and Mak International, we approach the law with the gravitas it deserves, understanding that every legal matter carries profound personal and ethical weight. Guided by principles of justice, fairness, and unwavering integrity, we see our role as more than advocates—we are stewards of our clients’ rights and aspirations. Our work is shaped by a commitment to excellence, meticulous attention to detail, and a deep respect for the dignity inherent in every legal challenge. With a steadfast focus on achieving equitable outcomes, we bring clarity to complexity and champion your cause with the insight and care it merits. Let us stand as your devoted partners in the pursuit of justice and peace.
Contact us at [email protected] for Legal Consultation.
https://joshandmakinternational.com/
