- On 12 August 2026 the Supreme People’s Court released seven typical cases on commercial franchising (jia meng lian suo), clarifying how courts characterise franchise relationships, protect franchisees and sanction franchisor misconduct.
2026年8月12日，最高人民法院发布7件商业特许经营典型案例，明确了法院如何认定特许经营法律关系、保护被特许人权益并规制特许人违法行为。
- Courts apply a substance-over-form test: split or disguised contracts that together exhibit the hallmarks of franchising — licensed business resources, a unified business model and payment of fees — will be treated as franchise agreements.
法院采取穿透实质的认定原则：即使合同被拆分或包装，只要共同具备”许可经营资源、统一经营模式、支付特许经营费用”三大特征，即认定成立特许经营关系。
- Franchisees enjoy a statutory “cooling-off” right: they may unilaterally rescind the contract within a reasonable period before the licensed resources are actually used, even without an express contract clause.
被特许人享有法定”冷静期”单方解除权：在经营资源尚未被实际利用的合理期限内，即使合同未明确约定，也可以单方解除合同。
- A franchisor that engages in false advertising to induce the franchisee loses the contract on fraud grounds; unqualified individuals and entities that grant franchises face void or invalid contracts.
特许人以虚假宣传诱使被特许人订立合同的，构成欺诈、合同可撤销；不具备特许人法定资格的主体签订的特许经营合同被认定无效。
- Franchisors operating without the “two outlets, one year” track record can be penalised by commerce authorities, and the courts will uphold those administrative penalties.
特许人不具备”两店一年”条件违规开展特许经营的，商务主管部门可予以行政处罚，人民法院依法支持。
- For foreign brands entering China, the case law sets a compliance benchmark for franchise documentation, disclosure, cooling-off clauses and administrative filing — and signals tougher judicial scrutiny of “routine franchising” traps.
对入华外资品牌而言，该批案例为加盟合同文本、信息披露、冷静期条款与行政备案树立了合规基准，也预示着对”套路加盟”更严格的司法审查。
- Foreign franchisors should also map franchise exposure onto trademark law: brand resources, trade secrets and licensing terms sit at the core of what courts examine.
外资特许人还须将加盟业务与商标法规则对接：商标资源、商业秘密与许可条款正是法院审查的核心。
Franchising in China Gets a Judicial Roadmap: SPC’s 2026 Typical Cases for Foreign Brands | 中国特许经营获司法路线图：最高法2026年典型案例对外资品牌的启示
Why this matters now
Commercial franchising — the “jiameng lian suo” model used by restaurants, retail, hotels, education and quick-service brands — has grown rapidly in China, and so have its disputes. On 12 August 2026 the Supreme People’s Court (SPC) released seven typical cases on commercial franchising, published through the court’s official channels and covered by Xinhua and other state media. For foreign brands that license their trademarks and business systems to Chinese franchisees, the release is a practical compliance readout: it shows how Chinese courts will characterise a franchise deal, what obligations sit on the franchisor, and where the enforcement risk concentrates. The cases also matter because China’s franchise market is one of the few in Asia where brand licensing at scale is subject to both the Commercial Franchise Administration Regulations and increasingly active judicial interpretation.
What the typical cases establish
The seven cases address four clusters of issues. First, contract characterisation: a company that signed a “service agreement” plus a “project logo use agreement” to avoid the franchise label still had the relationship re-characterised as a franchise because the contracts together gave the franchisee the use of business resources under a unified model for a fee. Second, franchisee protection: a franchisee who paid fees but had not yet used the business resources could exercise the statutory cooling-off right and rescind the contract, entitling them to a refund. Third, franchisor obligations: a franchisor that engaged in false advertising to induce a franchisee was found to have committed fraud, so the contract could be rescinded; a franchisor whose filing qualification was revoked mid-contract was vulnerable to termination; and an individual or entity without franchisor qualifications could not grant valid franchises. Fourth, enforcement: franchisors without the “two outlets, one year” requirement were penalised by commerce authorities, and the courts upheld the penalties; fraud and pyramid-like conduct in the franchise space was channelled into criminal liability where elements were met.
What this means for foreign franchisors
For a foreign trademark owner entering China through a master franchise or joint-venture franchise structure, the cases carry several operational lessons. Documentation matters: the more your contracts package themselves as technology services or brand-use licenses, the more likely a court will look through the form and apply franchise law anyway — so draft for the franchise regime from the start. Disclosure discipline matters: China’s franchise regulations require disclosure of registered trademarks, business model and related information before signing; the new cases reinforce that non-disclosure and over-promotion are not just administrative risks but contract risks. Cooling-off design matters: because the statutory right exists even without a clause, franchise systems should budget for early exits before the franchisee actually starts using the brand. Finally, qualification checks matter: before granting a franchise, verify the franchisee-facing entity structure, and ensure the “two outlets, one year” record and the Ministry of Commerce filing are genuinely in place, because both are now judicially tested.
Practical steps for foreign brands
- Audit your franchise documents. Review franchise agreements, disclosure statements and marketing materials against the substance-over-form test, and decide explicitly whether to operate under the franchise regime or another model.
- Reinforce disclosure. Update the disclosure document to reflect the latest trademark registrations, royalties and financial projections; keep a dated record of delivery to each franchisee.
- Handle the cooling-off window. Set procedures to process early rescission claims within the “not yet used” window, including refund mechanics and brand-asset recovery.
- Verify qualifications. Confirm the franchisor entity’s “two outlets, one year” experience and its Ministry of Commerce filing; document both before signing new franchisees.
- Train sales staff. Ensure marketing teams avoid absolute promises about profitability and success, since over-promotion can convert an administrative case into a fraud rescission.
- Coordinate IP and dispute teams. Keep trademark and trade-secret evidence ready, because in disputes the courts examine the licensed resources first; integrate franchise case law into your China dispute playbook.
Risks and compliance notes
The judicial signal is stricter than before: courts will pierce contract form, uphold franchisee rescissions, and back administrative penalties. Foreign franchisors should treat the “two outlets, one year” rule and the filing obligation as structural, not clerical. If a brand is expanding through area development agreements or sub-franchising, confirm that liability allocation between the foreign licensor and the Chinese master franchisee is clear, because in substance-over-form review the foreign brand’s trademarks are usually the core licensed resource. Finally, cross-border licensing itself touches tax withholding and IP registration; the franchise contract’s fee structure should be reviewed alongside trademark licence recordation to keep the whole structure consistent.
中国特许经营获司法路线图：最高法2026年典型案例对外资品牌的启示
为什么当下重要
商业特许经营——餐饮、零售、酒店、教育培训与快餐品牌普遍采用的”加盟连锁”模式——在中国增长迅速，纠纷也随之增多。2026年8月12日，最高人民法院发布7件商业特许经营典型案例，通过法院官方渠道发布，新华社等中央媒体广泛报道。对向中国加盟商许可商标与经营体系的境外品牌而言，该批案例是一次实用的合规读本：它展示了中国法院将如何认定加盟交易、特许人承担哪些义务、执法风险集中在何处。案例之所以重要，还因为中国是亚洲少数几个规模化品牌授权既受《商业特许经营管理条例》约束、又面临日益活跃的司法解释的市场之一。
典型案例确立了什么
7件案例围绕四组问题展开。一是合同定性：某公司签订《服务协议书》加《项目标识使用协议》以规避加盟标签，但由于合同共同赋予加盟商在统一模式下使用经营资源并支付对价，仍被重新认定为特许经营关系。二是被特许人保护：已付费但尚未实际使用经营资源的被特许人可以行使法定”冷静期”解除权并解除合同、获得退款。三是特许人义务：以虚假宣传诱使加盟商签约的特许人被认定构成欺诈、合同可撤销；合同履行期间备案资格被撤销的特许人更易被解除合同；不具备特许人资格的主体不能签订有效加盟合同。四是执法衔接：不具备”两店一年”条件的特许人被商务主管部门处罚，法院予以支持；加盟领域构成诈骗、传销要件的，移送刑事责任追究。
对外资特许人的意义
对外国商标权人通过主加盟或合资加盟结构进入中国而言，该批案例带来若干操作性启示。文件文本很重要：合同越是将自己包装成技术服务或品牌使用许可，法院越可能穿透形式、仍然适用加盟法规——因此应从设计之初就按特许经营体制起草。信息披露纪律很重要：中国加盟法规要求在签约前披露注册商标、经营模式及相关信息；新案例强化了”不披露与过度宣传不仅是行政风险，更是合同风险”。冷静期设计很重要：由于即使无条款约定也存在法定权利，加盟体系应为加盟商真正开始使用品牌之前的早期退出预留预算。资格核查很重要：授予加盟权前，应核验面向加盟商的实体结构，并确保”两店一年”业绩与商务部备案真实到位——因为二者现在都经受司法检验。
外资品牌的操作步骤
- 审计加盟文件。 对照”穿透实质”测试审查加盟协议、信息披露书与营销材料，并明确决定是按特许经营体制运营还是采用其他模式。
- 强化信息披露。 更新披露文件以反映最新商标注册、特许费与财务预测；留存向每位加盟商交付披露文件的带日期记录。
- 处理冷静期窗口。 建立程序，在”尚未实际使用”窗口内处理早期解约请求，包括退款机制与品牌资产回收。
- 核验资质。 确认特许人实体的”两店一年”经验与商务部备案；在签约新加盟商前将二者文件化。
- 培训销售团队。 确保营销团队避免对盈利能力与成功作出绝对承诺，因为过度宣传可能把行政案件变成欺诈撤销案件。
- 协同知识产权与争议团队。 准备好商标与商业秘密证据，因为争议中法院首先审查许可的经营资源；将加盟案例法纳入中国争议应对手册。
风险与合规提示
此次司法信号比以往更严：法院将穿透合同形式、支持被特许人解除合同、并支持行政处罚。外资特许人应把”两店一年”规则与备案义务视为结构性要求而非事务性要求。如果品牌正通过区域开发协议或再加盟扩张，应确认外国许可人与中国主加盟商之间的责任分配清晰，因为在穿透实质审查中，外资品牌的商标通常正是被许可的核心资源。最后，跨境许可本身还涉及预提税与知识产权备案；加盟合同费用结构应与商标许可备案一并审查，以保持整体结构一致。
Sources
- 最高人民法院《规范加盟市场 守护创业权益——聚焦商业特许经营典型案例》（2026-08-12发布）：<https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/508551.html>
- 新华社报道《最高法发布7件典型案例 促进特许经营健康有序发展》（中国网转载，2026-08-12）：<https://big5.china.com.cn/gate/big5/news.china.com.cn/2026-08/12/content_118644154.shtml>
- 光明日报《最高法发布7件典型案例 促进特许经营健康有序发展》（2026-08-13第4版）：<https://www.toutiao.com/article/7673247449233900058/>