C
lea
rl
y
,
a
t t
he
ve
r
y
l
e
a
st,
thi
s t
y
p
e
of
"
e
a
rnin
g
s pr
ojec
t
ion"
shoul
d be
subj
e
c
t t
o a
t l
e
a
st t
he
sa
me
standa
rd of
disclosur
e
, hist
oric
a
l bac
k
g
round
, o
r s
ubst
a
nti
a
ti
on that other
fr
a
nc
hisors m
ust m
e
e
t
whe
n pro
vidi
n
g
the non
-
"
stre
a
m of r
e
v
e
nue
"
e
a
rni
ng
s, c
laims
or p
roje
c
ti
on
s.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: C
o
-
B
ra
n
ding
.
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse: The
que
sti
on wa
s posed a
s to
wha
t di
sc
losure
r
e
quire
ments a
re
ne
c
e
ssa
r
y
in
the e
ve
nt t
he
f
ra
nc
hise
e
i
s purc
ha
sin
g
a
"
C
o
-
B
ra
n
ding"
fr
a
nc
hise w
h
e
re
th
e
re
is m
ore
than on
e
c
ompan
y
or bu
siness be
i
ng
a
c
quire
d b
y
the
fr
a
n
c
h
isee
to oper
a
t
e
a
s a
fr
a
n
c
hise
loca
ti
on.
I
t i
s m
y
opini
on that if both c
ompan
y
lo
g
os wil
l be
e
qua
ll
y
p
romoted, a
nd if
the f
ra
n
c
hisee
si
g
ns
a
se
pa
r
a
te f
ra
nc
hise
a
g
r
e
e
ment with ea
c
h
fr
a
n
c
hisor, e
ve
n if the
fr
a
n
c
hisee
pa
y
s on
e
fr
a
nc
hise
fe
e
, then the
fr
a
n
c
hisee
s
hould be c
onsi
de
re
d
a
s h
a
v
ing
pur
c
ha
s
e
d two indi
viduall
y
tra
d
e
mar
k
e
d
fr
a
nc
hises
a
nd shoul
d the
re
for
e
re
c
e
ive s
e
pa
r
a
te di
sc
losure
s a
nd U
F
OCs fr
o
m ea
c
h f
ra
nc
hisor.
The
fa
c
t i
s, the business r
isks
a
re
not m
uc
h diff
e
re
nt for
the f
r
a
nc
hisee
th
a
n
if he
wa
s pur
c
ha
sin
g
one
or the
other
o
f
the tw
o fr
a
nc
hises in qu
e
sti
on, pa
rtic
ular
l
y
since
both wi
ll
be
ope
ra
ted out of
the sa
me loc
a
ti
on that the
fr
a
nc
hise
e
mi
g
ht h
a
ve
so
ug
ht t
o a
c
quir
e
to oper
a
te
one
or the
other
o
f
the two busine
sses se
pa
r
a
tel
y
.
"
H
y
brid
"
f
ra
nc
hise
a
rr
a
n
g
e
m
e
nts ar
e
a
n
"
e
nha
n
c
e
ment"
to an e
x
ist
ing
fr
a
n
c
hise mode
l, not
a
re
plac
e
ment.
Unle
ss t
he
two f
ra
n
c
hiso
r c
ompanie
s fo
rm a
ne
w t
hird
-
pa
rt
y
joi
nt ventur
e
f
ra
nc
hisor, e
a
c
h o
f
them shoul
d be
c
onsi
de
re
d a
s a
se
pa
ra
te
fr
a
n
c
hisor
subj
e
c
t t
o full di
sc
losure
re
quire
ments wit
h
re
spe
c
t t
o
a
n
y
n
e
w f
ra
nc
hisee
who de
sir
e
s to o
pe
n both bus
inesse
s in a "
C
o
-
B
r
a
ndin
g
"
s
e
tt
ing
.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: R
e
visi
on of
The
R
ule to r
e
du
c
e
o
r w
a
ive pe
n
a
lt
ies f
or inf
r
a
c
ti
ons.
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
do
a
gre
e
th
a
t t
he
F
TC sh
oul
d foc
us i
ts enf
or
c
e
ment a
tt
e
nti
on on se
rio
us
viol
a
ti
ons t
ha
t ca
use
"
si
gnific
a
nt consume
r injur
y
.
"
I
do
re
c
o
g
niz
e
the f
a
c
t t
h
a
t l
im
it
e
d re
sourc
e
s, bot
h
human a
nd fina
nc
i
a
l wit
h re
spe
c
t t
o
budg
e
ti
n
g
, ne
c
e
ssi
tate
a
t l
e
a
st a r
e
vi
e
w of
thi
s opt
ion b
y
the
F
TC.
B
ut, i
n m
y
jud
g
ment, it
is i
mporta
nt not
to
c
onfuse
fr
a
n
c
hisors a
s to wha
t v
iol
a
ti
ons or
infr
a
c
ti
ons "
will
be
e
nfor
c
e
d
"
a
nd whic
h on
e
s will
not be.
Nor
shoul
d the F
TC prov
ide, e
it
he
r in f
a
c
t or b
y
i
mpl
ica
ti
on, a
n ince
nti
ve
to fr
a
nc
hisors t
o less
e
n
or r
e
duc
e
their
e
ff
orts to
"
c
ome into and
re
main in
full c
ompl
ianc
e
"
to t
he
f
ull
e
st ex
tent possi
b
le
with t
he
re
quire
ments a
n
d pro
visi
ons of the
F
TC
R
ule.
P
e
rha
ps t
he
F
TC ca
n e
sta
bli
sh a
n int
e
rna
l pol
ic
y
a
s to wha
t porti
on or
bod
y
of its g
uidelines or
rule
s will
re
c
e
iv
e
less a
tt
e
nti
on a
nd e
nfor
c
e
ment
a
c
ti
vi
t
y
than othe
rs,
a
nd thi
s de
c
isi
on would
obvious
l
y
re
fle
c
t t
he
c
u
rr
e
nt si
tuation whe
re
the
a
g
e
n
c
y
must
de
a
l wit
h a
more
li
mi
ted budg
e
t
with fe
we
r p
e
rsonne
l
re
s
ourc
e
s to m
onit
or na
ti
onwide
a
c
ti
vit
ies.
8
C
lea
rl
y
,
a
t t
he
ve
r
y
l
e
a
st,
thi
s t
y
p
e
of
"
e
a
rnin
g
s pr
ojec
t
ion"
shoul
d be
subj
e
c
t t
o a
t l
e
a
st t
he
sa
me
standa
rd of
disclosur
e
, hist
oric
a
l bac
k
g
round
, o
r s
ubst
a
nti
a
ti
on that other
fr
a
nc
hisors m
ust m
e
e
t
whe
n pro
vidi
n
g
the non
-
"
stre
a
m of r
e
v
e
nue
"
e
a
rni
ng
s, c
laims
or p
roje
c
ti
on
s.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: C
o
-
B
ra
n
ding
.
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse: The
que
sti
on wa
s posed a
s to
wha
t di
sc
losure
r
e
quire
ments a
re
ne
c
e
ssa
r
y
in
the e
ve
nt t
he
f
ra
nc
hise
e
i
s purc
ha
sin
g
a
"
C
o
-
B
ra
n
ding"
fr
a
nc
hise w
h
e
re
th
e
re
is m
ore
than on
e
c
ompan
y
or bu
siness be
i
ng
a
c
quire
d b
y
the
fr
a
n
c
h
isee
to oper
a
t
e
a
s a
fr
a
n
c
hise
loca
ti
on.
I
t i
s m
y
opini
on that if both c
ompan
y
lo
g
os wil
l be
e
qua
ll
y
p
romoted, a
nd if
the f
ra
n
c
hisee
si
g
ns
a
se
pa
r
a
te f
ra
nc
hise
a
g
r
e
e
ment with ea
c
h
fr
a
n
c
hisor, e
ve
n if the
fr
a
n
c
hisee
pa
y
s on
e
fr
a
nc
hise
fe
e
, then the
fr
a
n
c
hisee
s
hould be c
onsi
de
re
d
a
s h
a
v
ing
pur
c
ha
s
e
d two indi
viduall
y
tra
d
e
mar
k
e
d
fr
a
nc
hises
a
nd shoul
d the
re
for
e
re
c
e
ive s
e
pa
r
a
te di
sc
losure
s a
nd U
F
OCs fr
o
m ea
c
h f
ra
nc
hisor.
The
fa
c
t i
s, the business r
isks
a
re
not m
uc
h diff
e
re
nt for
the f
r
a
nc
hisee
th
a
n
if he
wa
s pur
c
ha
sin
g
one
or the
other
o
f
the tw
o fr
a
nc
hises in qu
e
sti
on, pa
rtic
ular
l
y
since
both wi
ll
be
ope
ra
ted out of
the sa
me loc
a
ti
on that the
fr
a
nc
hise
e
mi
g
ht h
a
ve
so
ug
ht t
o a
c
quir
e
to oper
a
te
one
or the
other
o
f
the two busine
sses se
pa
r
a
tel
y
.
"
H
y
brid
"
f
ra
nc
hise
a
rr
a
n
g
e
m
e
nts ar
e
a
n
"
e
nha
n
c
e
ment"
to an e
x
ist
ing
fr
a
n
c
hise mode
l, not
a
re
plac
e
ment.
Unle
ss t
he
two f
ra
n
c
hiso
r c
ompanie
s fo
rm a
ne
w t
hird
-
pa
rt
y
joi
nt ventur
e
f
ra
nc
hisor, e
a
c
h o
f
them shoul
d be
c
onsi
de
re
d a
s a
se
pa
ra
te
fr
a
n
c
hisor
subj
e
c
t t
o full di
sc
losure
re
quire
ments wit
h
re
spe
c
t t
o
a
n
y
n
e
w f
ra
nc
hisee
who de
sir
e
s to o
pe
n both bus
inesse
s in a "
C
o
B
r
a
ndin
g
"
s
e
tt
ing
.
Que
sti
on/Topi
c
: R
e
visi
on of
The
R
ule to r
e
du
c
e
o
r w
a
ive pe
n
a
lt
ies f
or inf
r
a
c
ti
ons.
C
omm
e
nt/
R
e
sponse:
I
do
a
gre
e
th
a
t t
he
F
TC sh
oul
d foc
us i
ts enf
or
c
e
ment a
tt
e
nti
on on se
rio
viol
a
ti
ons t
ha
t ca
use
"
si
gnific
a
nt consume
r injur
y
.
"
I
do
re
c
o
g
niz
e
the f
a
c
t t
h
a
t l
im
it
e
d re
sourc
e
s, bot
h
human a
nd fina
nc
i
a
l wit
h re
spe
c
t t
o
budg
e
ti
n
g
, ne
c
e
ssi
tate
a
t l
e
a
st a r
e
vi
e
w of
thi
s opt
ion b
y
the
F
TC.
B
ut, i
n m
y
jud
g
ment, it
is i
mporta
nt not
to
c
onfuse
fr
a
n
c
hisors a
s to wha
t v
iol
a
ti
ons or
infr
a
c
ti
ons "
will
be
e
nfor
c
e
d
"
a
nd whic
h on
e
s will
not be.
Nor
shoul
d the F
TC prov
ide, e
it
he
r in f
a
c
t or b
y
i
mpl
ica
ti
on, a
n ince
nti
ve
to fr
a
nc
hisors t
o less
e
n
or r
e
duc
e
their
e
ff
orts to
"
c
ome into and
re
main in
full c
ompl
ianc
e
"
to t
he
f
ull
e
st ex
tent possi
b
le
with t
he
re
quire
ments a
n
d pro
visi
ons of the
F
TC
R
ule.
P
e
rha
ps t
he
F
TC ca
n e
sta
bli
sh a
n int
e
rna
l pol
ic
y
a
s to wha
t porti
on or
bod
y
of its g
uidelines or
rule
s will
re
c
e
iv
e
less a
tt
e
nti
on a
nd e
nfor
c
e
ment
a
c
ti
vi
t
y
than othe
rs,
a
nd thi
s de
c
isi
on would
obvious
l
y
re
fle
c
t t
he
c
u
rr
e
nt si
tuation whe
re
the
a
g
e
n
c
y
must
de
a
l wit
h a
more
li
mi
ted budg
e
t
with fe
we
r p
e
rsonne
l
re
s
ourc
e
s to m
onit
or na
ti
onwide
a
c
ti
vit
ies.
8
