Rupert M Barkoff

Rupert M Barkoff

February 25, 2019 | New York Law Journal

Loss of Trademark: A Franchisor's Worst Nightmare

In his Franchising column, Rupert M. Barkoff discusses 'Supermac's (Holdings) Ltd. v. McDonald's Intellectual Property Company, Ltd.' in which the Cancellation Division of the European Union Intellectual Property Office concluded that McDonald's had abandoned the BIG MAC mark and thus the mark should be cancelled.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

6 minute read

November 19, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Upcoming Review of the Franchise Disclosure Rule: Here We Go Again

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff discusses the recent proposal to change the state cover page of the Franchise Disclosure Document and suggests that the review may not result in many significant changes.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

7 minute read

September 17, 2018 | New York Law Journal

No-Poaching and Non-Compete Provisions: Long-Time Practices Go Under the Microscope

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff discusses a new employment issue that is taking center stage—the subject of employee “poaching” in the franchising context.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

9 minute read

June 04, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Recent Noncompete, Trademark Infringement and Nonsignatory Franchise Precedents

During the last 12 months or so, franchise precedents rendered in the areas of covenants of noncompetition and trademark infringement have been numerous.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

1 minute read

February 27, 2018 | New York Law Journal

Would a Franchise Lawyer Make a Good Franchisee?

In his Franchising column, Rupert Barkoff discusses the pros and cons of whether a franchise lawyer would make a good (or bad) franchisee. On the one hand, they may "be more likely to understand the significance of a franchise agreement," but on the other, they may "be fixed in their ways and not easily convinced that the franchisor's system must be followed in order to achieve success."

By Rupert M. Barkoff

8 minute read

November 17, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Joint Employer Liability in the United States and Australia

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff writes: Why is the New York Law Journal publishing an article on the joint employer liability issue in the United States and Australia? Because this issue, which has been THE hot issue in U.S. franchise law for several years, has also shown its face in Australia during this period, and is now the headline legal issue in Australian franchising as well.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

10 minute read

August 28, 2017 | New York Law Journal

The Changing Face of Franchising

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff discusses the changing franchisee population, with the growth of multi-unit, and in some cases, multi-system franchisees; the changing values and business objectives as professional businesspersons take over; and of course, changing technology.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

13 minute read

May 26, 2017 | New York Law Journal

Franchisees Sitting on My Board? Never!

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff writes: There are many situations today where a group or a constituency wants to make sure that it has a voice at the decision-making table by having a representative on its franchisor's board of directors—a so-called "constituency director." Is this a good or bad idea?

By Rupert M. Barkoff

20 minute read

November 29, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Joint Employer Liability for Franchisors After the Obama Era

Franchising columnist Rupert M. Barkoff discusses prospects for joint employer liability for franchisors after the Obama era, the hottest issue in franchise law over the last few years. Joint employer liability could occur when an employee could claim that he or she had not one, but two, employers -- one begin the franchisor and the other the franchisee.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

15 minute read

August 29, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Enforcing Termination Obligations of Franchise Agreements

In his Franchising column, Rupert M. Barkoff writes about termination of franchise agreements where the franchisor has the right to demand, among other things, that the franchisee de-identify, not compete, assign the phone number of the former franchisee to franchisor, and return its confidential operating manuals, and what happens when the franchisee refuses to comply with these obligations. In one case, a drastic remedy was imposed.

By Rupert M. Barkoff

18 minute read