It is not easy to prove the value of intangibles. Sometimes it must be proven indirectly. A franchisee that leaves the system, but continues, even for a short time, to trade on his former affiliation with the franchisor s identity is tacitly admitting that there is substantial value in the identity and in the system. The look and feel of a franchise identity also comprise an integral part of that proprietary value. Changing the name, but keeping the style doesn t quite negate the argument that the departed franchisee is still trying to rip off aspects of the former franchise system and identity.
Every system has problems and complaints.
None is perfect. That the departing franchisee harbors very negative opinions of the value of the relationship in a meaningful competitive sense is usually seen as disingenuous in light of multi unit ownership. If there is also any retention of any aspect of the old identity, bad mouthing its value is frequently viewed by judge and jury as a recent fabrication, not a truly held genuine belief. Where the multiple unit ownership has accounted for an essentially enclosed geographic area of some proportion, that franchisee will have enjoyed a totality of the marketing value of the franchisor s identity throughout the term of the franchise relationship. The loss of a substantial area is sometimes viewed as a greater injury to the franchisor in this context than would be the case of the loss of a single store.