A written agreement by which: (1) A person is granted the right to engage in the business of offering, selling, or distributing goods or services under a marketing plan prescribed or suggested in substantial part by the grantor or its affiliate; (2) The operation of the business is substantially associated with a trademark, service mark, trade name, advertising, or other commercial symbol; designating, owned by, or licensed by the grantor or its affiliate; and (3) The person pays, agrees to pay, or is required to pay, directly or indirectly, a franchise fee.
Effective Date | Schedule One | Schedule Two | ▲ | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apr. 1, 2015 | $11 | $10 | 10% | ||
Jan. 1, 2016 | $13 | $10.50 | 24% | ||
Jan. 1, 2017 | $15 | $11 | 36% | ||
Jan. 1, 2018 | $15 | $11.50 | 30% | ||
Jan. 1, 2019 | $15 | $12 | 25% | ||
Jan. 1, 2020 | $15 | $13.50 | 11% | ||
Jan. 1, 2021 | $15 | $15 | 0% |
The party challenging a regulation bears the burden of establishing that a challenged statute has a discriminatory purpose or effect under the Commerce Clause. We will assume that the objectives articulated by the legislature are actual purposes of the statute, unless an examination of the circumstances forces us to conclude that they could not have been a goal of the legislation.
[F]ranchises like [S]ubway and McDonalds really are not very good for our local economy. They are economically extractive, civically corrosive and culturally dilutive [sic].... A city dominated by independent, locally owned, unique sandwich and hamburger restaurants will be more economically, civically and culturally rich than one dominated by extractive national chains.
[N]ational franchises like McDonalds, or Burger King or KFC, or Subway, simply are not that beneficial to our city. First, these organizations are consistently at the low end of the scale in terms of paying decently and offering benefits. Not all small, locally owned companies take great care of their workers, but none of the national chains do.... [O]ur city has no obligation to continue policies that so obviously advantage them and disadvantage the local businesses that benefit our city and it's [sic] citizens more.
The purpose underlying any trade-mark statute is twofold. One is to protect the public so it may be confident that ... it will get the product which it asks for and wants to get. Secondly, where the owner of a trade-mark has spent energy, time, and money in presenting to the public the product, he is protected in his investment from its misappropriation by pirates and cheats.
End of Document | © 2024 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. |