Checking a Franchise: Three Sources of Data on the Network

On 24 September 2026, a post entitled ‘Franchise Passport’ appeared on the Sostav blog, outlining a quick way to check a network before buying a franchise. The author suggests comparing the seller’s presentation with three sources: records from Rospatent, Russia’s intellectual property office; outlet listings on maps; and information about the legal entity. For those considering the Russian franchise market, this offers a practical starting point for deciding what information to request before entering detailed negotiations.

Why check the presentation against external sources?

The article suggests that an initial assessment of a franchise should go beyond promises and descriptions of the business model to include checks against external sources. It focuses on the trademark, registered agreements, outlets that are actually operating and the company behind the offer. These checks answer different questions and are not interchangeable.

The publication provides some context by citing an estimate that demand for franchises in Russia fell by around 40% year on year in the first quarter of 2026. It attributes this figure to Forbes. However, the supporting material supplied does not explain the calculation methodology, so the figure should be treated as an estimate quoted in the post rather than an independently verified finding about the market.

The main value of the proposed approach is that it turns broad claims about a network into specific questions. If the seller gives an outlet count, ask for a list of addresses. If they refer to brand recognition, request the trademark registration number. If they offer you a contract, ask for the INN — the Russian taxpayer identification number — of the relevant legal entity. This sequence helps make the first conversation more substantive.

Trademarks: what to look for in the register

The first area of investigation is Rospatent’s records. Using the trademark registration number, the author suggests opening the ‘Notices’ section on the website of FIPS, the Federal Institute of Industrial Property, and looking for records of registered commercial concession agreements, the legal framework commonly used for franchising in Russia. According to the article, these notices can provide information about when agreements were concluded, the counterparties, the territories covered and terminations.

For a prospective franchisee, this is a way to compare the account of the network’s growth with available registration records. It is important to look beyond the mere existence of an entry: the proposed check involves examining the contents of the notices. A date, contracting party or territory that does not match the presentation may warrant a follow-up question to the franchisor.

The publication does not, however, report checks on any specific brands. It therefore provides no basis for concluding that a particular network is operating improperly or, conversely, has passed a comprehensive review. It describes a process for gathering information. A sensible next step for a buyer is to record any discrepancies and ask the seller to explain them before making a decision.

Maps: comparing addresses and outlet counts

The second source is Yandex Maps and 2GIS, two map and business directory services used in Russia. The author recommends comparing the stated number of outlets with map listings, checking not only their names but also their status: open, temporarily closed or closed. For an initial check, the article suggests selecting five to ten addresses from the network.

This exercise should be distinguished from a review of the entire network. A sample of addresses can help generate initial questions, but it does not in itself confirm the total number of operating outlets. If a franchisor claims to have a large network, it is worth establishing exactly which outlets are included in the figure before comparing information on a like-for-like basis.

The publication describes a discrepancy of more than 10–15% as a warning sign. This is the author’s suggested benchmark, not a mandatory threshold established by the research. It is better used as a reason to request explanations than as grounds for making allegations. The practical outcome of this comparison is a list of addresses and statuses for which further information is needed from the franchise seller.

The legal entity and the next step

The third part of the proposed approach concerns the company behind the franchise. The article recommends using its INN to search company-checking services. It lists the age of the legal entity, tax arrears, whether it is active or in liquidation, and litigation as points to examine. This section refers to EGRUL, Russia’s Unified State Register of Legal Entities, although the search process described is broader and involves company-checking services.

It is useful first to establish the relationship between the brand name, the seller’s legal entity and the proposed contracting party. Otherwise, the information gathered may concern a different company from the one the prospective franchisee is being asked to work with. Search results are best discussed individually: what has been found, which company it concerns and what explanations the franchisor can provide.

The five-minute check promised in the original article’s headline is best understood as an initial review of available information, rather than a comprehensive assessment. The publication offers a route through the first stages of research, but it neither checks the financial performance of a specific franchise nor reaches a conclusion about its reliability.

The practical takeaway: before negotiations, request the trademark registration number, the INN and the outlet addresses. Check them against the three suggested sources and prepare a list of questions. The chief benefit of this approach is that it shifts the discussion from general promises to verifiable details.