A federal court in Florida recently granted in part and denied in part a former franchisee’s motion to dismiss claims for breaching a post-termination noncompete agreement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. CHHJ Franchising LLC v. Spaulding, 2024 WL 229406 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2024). CHHJ Franchising LLC sued former franchisee Spaulding Hauling Moving LLC and Victor Spaulding after Spaulding continued to use the franchisor’s COLLEGE HUNKS HAULING JUNK trademark to advertise a competing business after the franchise relationship ended. Spaulding moved to dismiss the federal trademark infringement and unfair competition claims, as well as CHHJ’s requests for injunctive relief and attorney’s fees, arguing that these counts failed to state a plausible claim for relief and, therefore, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the contract claims.
The court dismissed CHHJ’s request for injunctive relief and request for attorney’s fees, as set forth in Counts VI and VII of its complaint, because these requests are remedies, not independent causes of action. The court denied, however, Spaulding’s motion to dismiss the trademark and unfair competition claims, thus also permitting the breach of contract claims to survive. CHHJ pleaded sufficient facts to state a claim for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the court concluded, because Spaulding continued to display a sign bearing CHHJ’s mark outside of the office of its now-competing business and continued to advertise the competing business through various social medial and other online platforms usings CHHJ marks in those advertisements. Furthermore, the court found CHHJ plausibly alleged a likelihood of confusion, because it is reasonable to infer that some consumers may be confused by the advertising of the Spaulding Hauling business on websites also bearing CHHJ marks and by visiting offices that have CHHJ signage but Spaulding Hauling trucks in the parking lot.
- Partner
Sandy Bodeau practices in the areas of franchise and distribution law and mergers and acquisitions. She focuses on advising franchisors on new and ongoing franchise system development, registration and compliance, and ongoing ...
- Associate
Rachel is an associate in the firm's Franchise & Distribution practice group. Located in our Minneapolis office, Rachel counsels clients on transactional, business law, and franchise matters such as corporate governance and ...
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.