The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado denied SP Franchising, LLC and SP IP, LLC’s (collectively, SpeedPro) motion for a preliminary injunction against former franchisee 3FM, L.L.C., finding that SpeedPro failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm. SP Franchising, LLC v. 3FM, L.L.C., 2026 WL 2220822 (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2026). SpeedPro franchises a system for operating large-format graphics, printing, and signage services. After 3FM elected not to renew its SpeedPro franchise agreement and continued operating a distinct business from its former Omaha, Nebraska location under a different business model, SpeedPro claimed that 3FM violated post-term restrictive covenants, misappropriated trade secrets, infringed trademarks, and improperly retained customer information and artwork. The court rejected those arguments and dissolved a previously issued temporary restraining order that temporarily restricted 3FM’s conduct pending a full evidentiary hearing on SpeedPro’s request for a preliminary injunction.
The court concluded that SpeedPro was unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the franchise agreement prohibited competition only within 75 miles of a SpeedPro “Studio,” defined as a location operating as franchisor-owned or under a valid agreement. Because 3FM had de-branded its Omaha location and the franchise agreement had expired, the court found that the location no longer qualified as a “Studio” and that SpeedPro had not shown that 3FM was competing within a restricted area covered by the agreement. The court also found that SpeedPro was unlikely to succeed on its trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and cybersquatting claims, pointing to evidence that 3FM had ceased using SpeedPro’s marks, returned customer information and proprietary materials, surrendered access to SpeedPro systems, cancelled the SpeedPro trade name, deactivated the SpeedPro Omaha Instagram account, and was not using the “speedproomaha.com” domain name. The court further held that any harm arising from allegedly incomplete customer information or retained artwork could be compensated through monetary damages and therefore did not constitute irreparable harm. Accordingly, the court denied the preliminary injunction and dissolved a previously issued temporary restraining order.