新加坡特许经营的法律环境
By Constance Leong 梁彩玲女士
Given Singapore’s strict laws, legal expertise and legal infrastructures that promote a pro-business environment, Singapore is pivotal to Southeast Asia’s tremendous franchise success — a view shared by many franchise experts, including Mr Albert Kong, Founder / CEO of Asiawide Franchise Consultants.
新加坡严谨的法律制度、专业的法律人才以及支持商业发展的法律体系与架构皆为新加坡在推动东南亚特许经营的巨大成功方面发挥了关键作用——此观点广受特许经营专家（包括 江进兴先生，爱思威特许经营顾问公司创始人兼首席执行官）普遍认同。
This article delves into the legal principles and intellectual property laws that underpin franchising in Singapore. Firstly, it reviews key recent and past Singapore court decisions that shaped the franchise landscape. Secondly, it illuminatespotential pitfalls of franchisors and franchisees.
本文将通过审视对新加坡特许经营格局有深远影响的重要司法判决，并阐明特许经营商和加盟商可能面对的潜在风险与隐患，深入剖析支撑新加坡特许经营体系的法律原则与知识产权的法规。
Managing Franchise Contracts
管理特许经营合同
Essentially, the franchise contract is a commercial contract governed by contract law, principles of tort law, with oversight from statutes such as Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (“UCTA”) and the Misrepresentation Act 1967. Non-compliance of contractual terms (“Breach”) can lead to dire consequences. Parties must structure key terms and clauses to ensure their respective obligations are clearly defined and properly executed.
特许经营合同在本质上属于一种受合同法与侵权法原则所规范的商业合同，同时也受到《1977年不公平合约条款法》（UCTA）及《1967年失实陈述法》等法规的监管。若不遵守合同条款（“违约”），可能会导致严重后果。合同各方必须妥善设计合同中的关键条款与条文，确保清楚陈明各自的义务并妥善履行。
GNC Holdings LLC v ONI Global Pte Ltd and another ([2025] SGHC(I) 25), a case involving health products and dietary supplements, illustrates the pitfall of gathering insufficient direct evidence when alleging a Breach. Due to mistrust and suspicion, the Singapore franchisee, LAC, thought that the US-based franchisor, GNC Holdings, wanted to remove it from the franchise and had therefore committed a Breach. LAC, then terminated the franchise contract on its own. Without cogent evidence to support their termination, the franchisee wrongly believed that they would be legally released from the post-termination obligations. This wrong belief then led the franchisee to rebrand GNC into LAC in all its stores in Singapore overnight, without good legal reasons or the consent of the franchisor and thereby committed a Breach.
健安喜控股有限责任公司 （GNC）诉 ONI Global 私人有限公司及另一方案（[2025] SGHC(I) 25）是一起涉及保健品与膳食补充剂的案例，说明了在指控对方违约时若缺乏充分有力且明确的证据，会带来严重隐患。由于不信任及怀疑总部位于美国的特许商 GNC想将其从特许体系中移除，新加坡的加盟商 LAC 认为特许商已构成违约，遂自行终止特许经营合同。在欠缺有力证据支持其单方面终止合同的情况下，加盟商错误地相信自己可以因此合法免除终止后的各项义务。受此错误认知驱使，加盟商随后在一夜之间，未经特许人同意，也缺乏正当法律依据，将其在新加坡所有门店由“GNC”改为“LAC”品牌，从而构成违约。
The GNC-LAC dispute was first arbitrated in the US and the arbitration award was in favour of the franchisor. When the franchisor tried to enforce the arbitration award in Singapore, the franchisee unsuccessfully mounted a challenge before the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC”) which largely agreed to enforce the earlier US arbitration award in Singapore and ordered the franchisee to give the franchisor rights to the leases of all its Singapore outlets and pay the franchisor damages to the tune of US$18.9 million.
GNC 与 LAC 的纠纷最初在美国进行仲裁，仲裁裁决结果有利于特许商。其后，当特许商尝试在新加坡执行该仲裁裁决时，加盟商向新加坡国际商业法庭（“SICC”）提出挑战，结果失败。SICC 在很大程度上同意在新加坡执行美国先前的仲裁裁决，并指令加盟商将其在新加坡所有门店的租约权转让给特许商，同时赔偿特许商约 1,890 万美元的损失。
Ng Siew Lan v The Laundry Club Pte Ltd ([2021] SGDC 20), a laundry-sector case, reinforces the importance ofdocumenting to preserve evidence and to ensure that operational expectations and business targets are clearly defined and realistic in the franchise contract. The franchisor terminated the franchise contract due to dissatisfaction with the franchisee’s operational performance. In response, the franchisee claimed wrongful termination, arguing that the franchisor had repudiated the contract, and sought a refund of previous payments along with compensation for financial losses. The franchisor, in turn, filed a counterclaim. The court dismissed both parties’ claims. It ruled that the franchisee failed to provide sufficient evidence to support the wrongful termination allegation.
Ng Siew Lan 诉 The Laundry Club 私人有限公司（[2021] SGDC 20）是一起涉及洗衣业的案例，再次强调了妥善记录以保存证据的重要性，并凸显了在特许经营合同中将运营期望与业务目标清晰明确地界定的必要性。特许商因不满加盟商的营运表现而终止了特许经营合同。加盟商回应时指控特许商错误终止合同，而且已经否定并拒绝履行合同义务，因而要求退还先前支付的款项及赔偿其经济损失；特许商则提出反诉。法院最终驳回双方的提控，裁定加盟商未能提供足够证据支持其关于特许商错误终止合同的指控。
The Best Source Restaurant Pte Ltd v Wan Chai Capital Holdings Pte Ltd ([2009] SGHC 266) case illustrates the pitfall of withholding operational essentials from the franchisee in the F&B sector. The franchisee claimed that the franchisor failed to provide essential operational details, including recipes for menu items. Proprietary recipes are trade secrets, protected under the branch of intellectual property law known as confidential information. In a franchise model built on a replicable business system, the franchisor must share such trade secrets to ensure consistent results, and the franchisee is not obliged to take steps to obtain them. In return, franchisors typically receive upfront fees and ongoing royalties. The court ruled that the franchisor Wan Chai Capital Holdings’ obligation to supply this information was fundamental to the contract. As a result, the franchisee The Best Source Restaurant was justified in terminating the contract.
The Best Source Restaurant 私人有限公司 诉 湾仔资本控股私人有限公司（[2009] SGHC 266）此案例揭示了在餐饮业中向加盟商隐瞒关键运营要素所带来的风险。加盟商因特许商未能提供必要的运营细节，包括菜单上各项目的食谱而向其索赔。专有食谱属于商业秘密，受知识产权法中“保密信息”领域的保护。在依赖可复制商业系统的特许经营模式中，特许商必须将此类商业秘密与加盟商分享，以确保运营成果一致，而加盟商并没有自行设法取得这些信息的必要。一般情况下，特许商通常会收取预付费用及持续的权利金作为回报。法院裁定，特许商湾仔资本控股私人有限公司提供这些信息的义务是合同中的核心条款，因此，加盟商The Best Source Restaurant终止合同是合理且合法有据的。
The Franchise Term Sheet and its legal implications
特许经营条款清单及其法律影响
Once both franchisor and franchisee have negotiated the terms of the arrangement, the next step is to formalise those discussions in a legally binding franchise contract. Unlike standard commercial contracts, franchise deals typically involve multiple stages: a Term Sheet, preliminary contracts, and the final franchise contract. The Term Sheet should outline all key terms and conditions agreed upon by both parties.
当特许商与加盟商就合作条款协商完毕后，接着便需将这些讨论结果拟成正式具有法律约束力的特许经营合同。与一般商业合同有异之处是特许经营安排通常包含多个阶段：条款清单、初步合同以及最终的特许经营合同。条款清单应概述双方已达成一致的所有关键条款与条件。
In D’Oz International Pte Ltd v PSB Corporation Pte Ltd ([2009] SGDC 221, Appeal [2010] 3 SLR 267, [2010] SGHC 88, a case involving the China education sector, the Singapore court ruled that the Term Sheet, Preliminary Agreement, and unsigned Franchise Contract collectively formed the full contractual understanding between the parties. It found that the franchise relationship had been established once the Term Sheet was signed, even though the subsequent final Franchise Contract had yet to be executed.
在 D’Oz International Pte Ltd 诉 PSB Corporation Pte Ltd（[2009] SGDC 221上诉案 [2010] 3 SLR 267；[2010] SGHC 88）这一宗涉及中国教育业的案件中，新加坡法院裁定：条款清单、初步协议以及尚未签署的特许经营合同三者共同构成双方对合同完整的理解。法院认为，一旦双方签署了条款清单，特许经营关系即已成立，即使后续的最终特许经营合同尚未正式签署亦然。
Licensing A Brand Through Franchise Contracts
通过特许经营合同授权经营品牌
At the core of every successful franchise is its brand, proprietary know-how, systems, processes and technology. Protecting these valuable intangible assets is essential, and that protection comes from understanding and using the appropriate Intellectual Property (“IP) laws. As IP rights are territorial, franchise contracts must be tailored to work across multiple countries or regions, ensuring that the brand stays consistent and legally protected wherever the franchisees operate.
每一个成功特许经营体系的核心都在于其品牌、专有技术、运营系统、流程与技术。这些宝贵的无形资产必须受到妥善保护，而保护的基础在于充分理解并正确运用相关的知识产权（“IP”）法律。由于知识产权具有地域性，特许经营合同必须根据不同国家或地区的法律环境进行相应调整，以确保无论加盟特许经营者身在何处，品牌都能保持一致性并获得法律上的充分保护。
For the brand and other intangible assets to be properly licensed to franchisees, a well-crafted franchise contract should set out the following:
要将品牌及其他无形资产妥善授权给加盟商，一份精心拟定的特许经营合同应明确阐述以下内容：
- the scope of the licence (which territories it covers)
- brand usage guidelines and quality control standards
- the relationship between the IP owner (franchisor) and the licensee (franchisee)
- dispute resolution mechanisms
• 许可范围（涵盖地区）
• 品牌使用规范与质量控制标准
• 知识产权所有人（特许商）与被许可人（加盟商）之间的关系
• 纠纷解决机制
Leveraging Singapore’s Legal Expertise, Legal Infrastructure and Global Franchise Networks for Success
发挥新加坡的法律专长、法律体系架构与全球特许经营网络的优势以取得成功
As a leading hub for legal services, Singapore offers access to highly skilled legal professionals and a world-class judiciary with expertise in both domestic and international dispute resolution. The SICC is a testament to Singapore’s international commercial dispute resolution reputation and strategic location within Asia. This strong legal ecosystem is further enriched by Singapore’s active participation in global legal and franchise networks, such as:
作为区域领先的法律服务枢纽，新加坡除了拥有高素质的法律专业人才，其司法体系在国内与国外解决纠纷方面享誉盛名。新加坡国际商业法庭（SICC）更是体现了新加坡在国际商业事务纠纷解决领域的声誉与其在亚洲占有战略性的重要地位。新加坡通过积极参与全球法律与特许经营网络，进一步巩固并丰富了这一强大的法律生态体系，例如：
- The World Franchise Council, a global body formed by national franchise associations, counts Singapore’s own Franchise and Licensing Association (FLA) as one of the founding members (https://worldfranchisecouncil.net/).
世界特许经营理事会是由各国特许经营协会组成的全球性机构，其中新加坡特许经营与许可协会（FLA）是其创始成员之一。（https://worldfranchisecouncil.net/ ）
- The Licensing Executives Society (LES) Singapore is part of Licensing Executives International (LESI), a highly respected global organisation that held its annual conference in Singapore last year, reinforcing Singapore’s standing in the IP and licensing world (https://lesi.org/ and https://les-singapore.com/).
新加坡许可专家协会（LES Singapore）隶属国际许可专家协会（LESI），该组织是全球享有盛誉的知识产权与许可专业机构。其年度大会去年在新加坡举行，进一步巩固了新加坡在知识产权与授权领域的国际地位。（https://lesi.org/ 与 https://les-singapore.com/ ）
Singapore’s legal infrastructure now has a streamlined litigation track designed to make resolving intellectual property disputes faster and more accessible. (Supreme Court Practice Directions 2021, Part 23: Simplified Process for certain Intellectual Property Claims).
新加坡的法律基础设施如今设有一套更为精简的诉讼程序，旨在让知识产权纠纷的解决过程更为快捷、更加易于使用。（见《2021年最高法院实践指引》第23部分：某些知识产权索赔的简化程序。）
Conclusion
Franchising operates at the intersection of law, investment, venture capital, multi-billion business, and entrepreneurship. All these five aspects are served well by Singapore’s policy of not having franchise-specific legislation as it avoids creating additional regulatory and cost burdens on businesses and helps foster entrepreneurship. For both franchisors and franchisees, this would mean working in a legal environment that supports trust, transparency, fairness, reliability and confidence — while also allowing the flexibility to negotiate, structure, and manage franchise relationships through clear contracts and self-regulation.
结语
特许经营处于法律、投资、创业资本、价值数十亿规模的大型产业与创业活动的交汇点。新加坡不设特许经营专门立法的政策，有助于避免对企业施加额外的监管与成本负担，从而促进创业精神。对特许经营商和加盟商而言，这意味着在一个以信任、透明、公平、可靠与信心为基础的法律环境中运作，同时仍保有通过清晰合约与自我规管来协商、建立架构及管理特许经营关系的灵活性。
This article was first published in Asia Franchise & Business Opportunities magazine (Jan – March 2026 edition) and is now republished at www.gohpc.com with permission.
It has been peer-reviewed by franchise veteran Mr Albert Kong, Founder / CEO of Asiawide Franchise Consultants and fellow intellectual property lawyer Ms Moi Sok Ling, Managing Director of MOI Law Corporation. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect any position or policy of Goh Phai Cheng LLC (‘the firm’). While every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this article is correct, neither the author nor the firm can accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions or for any consequences resulting therefrom. Nothing herein is intended to amount to legal advice and professional opinion should be sought on a case-by-case basis. The hyperlinks were last checked on 12 November 2025.
本文早期草稿已由特许经营业界资深人士 江进兴先生（爱思威特许经营顾问公司创始人兼首席执行官）及知识产权律师梅淑玲女士（MOI 律师事务所董事总经理）进行同行评审。
**免责声明：**本文所表达的观点仅代表作者个人立场，并不一定反映吴沛镇律师事务所（以下简称“本所”）的任何立场或政策。作者与本所已尽力确保本文所载信息的准确性，但对其中的任何错误、遗漏或因此而产生的后果，均不承担任何责任。本文内容不构成法律意见，如有具体问题，建议个别寻求专业意见。本文中的超链接最后检查日期为 2025 年 11 月 12 日。