Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Federal Court Denies Franchisor’s Request for a Preliminary Injunction Finding No Likelihood of Irreparable Harm
Posted in Noncompetes

Meanwhile, a federal court in Ohio denied a franchisor’s motion for a preliminary injunction after finding that the franchisor did not show that it faced irreparable harm from a former franchisee who operated a competing business where the franchisor intended to open a new restaurant. D.P. Dough Franchising, LLC v. Southworth, 2017 WL 4315013 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 26, 2017). Franchisor D.P. Dough alleged a series of claims against Edward Southworth, a former franchisee, including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, copyright infringement, and trademark infringement. D.P. Dough also sought to enforce the nondiversion of business and noncompete clauses in the parties’ franchise agreement in order to prevent Southworth from operating similar calzone restaurants in new D.P. Dough locations.

The court denied the injunction, noting that while there are public policy interests in enforcing reasonable restrictive covenants, any potential harm from Southworth operating competing restaurants would be the result of fair, normal competition. The court paid particular attention to the scope of the nondiversion and noncompete clauses in the franchise agreement, which restricted the franchisee from diverting or attempting to divert business from D.P. Dough for a period of three years after the termination of the franchise agreement. While the nondiversion clause was unlimited in geographic scope, the noncompete clause prohibited Southworth from operating a competing restaurant within a sixty-mile radius of any D.P. Dough restaurant. The court found that the clauses were ambiguous and held that they were only reasonable if they applied to D.P. Dough restaurants that were already operating at the time the franchise agreement was terminated. Because D.P. Dough did not attempt to open new restaurants until after Southworth had already set up his competing restaurants in new locations, the court refused to enforce the provision. The court also denied the franchisor’s trademark and copyright claims, finding that Southworth was no longer using the franchisor’s marks or other protective information at the time of the injunction hearing. Finally, the court denied D.P. Dough’s trade secret claim because its recipes were generic and commonly known and therefore not entitled to protection.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.

About this Publication

The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP. 

To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here


















Blog Authors