March 20, 2026|Franchise Frontlines
March 20, 2026 | United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a published decision, Judge Gibbons of the Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court’s partial denial of preliminary injunctive relief sought by franchisor Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. against a group of former franchisees who exited the system and began operating competing businesses. Fetch! alleged breach of Franchise Agreements, trademark infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets, and sought to enjoin the former franchisees from continuing their competing operations. The franchisees argued they were effectively forced out of the system and challenged Fetch!’s conduct in connection with the sale and operation of certain franchise models. The district court denied broad injunctive relief, finding that equitable considerations—including the doctrine of unclean hands—counseled against such relief at the preliminary stage. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, emphasizing the deferential standard of review and the limited nature of preliminary injunction proceedings.
Relevant Background
Fetch! Pet Care operates a nationwide franchise system offering pet-care services through independently owned and operated franchise locations. The case arises from a dispute involving more than thirty former franchisees who, according to Fetch!, coordinated efforts to exit their Franchise Agreements while continuing to operate competing businesses using similar client bases and operational knowledge.
Fetch!’s franchise system included multiple operational models, including a legacy “1.0” structure and newer “2.0” and “managed-services” models that incorporated additional centralized support functions and different fee structures. Over time, disagreements developed between Fetch! and certain franchisees regarding system performance, support, and economics. A number of franchisees ceased paying royalties, issued rescission notices, and initiated arbitration proceedings.
As tensions escalated, Fetch! alleged that franchisees were preparing to transition away from the system, including downloading customer data and forming a separate entity as a contingency plan. In response, Fetch! restricted franchisees’ access to its system and filed suit seeking immediate injunctive relief to enforce post-termination restrictions and protect its intellectual property.
Following expedited proceedings, the district court granted limited relief, including restrictions on trademark use and certain communications, but declined to broadly enjoin the franchisees’ competing operations. Fetch! appealed.
Decision
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, focusing primarily on the equitable nature of preliminary injunction relief and the deferential abuse-of-discretion standard governing appellate review. The court emphasized that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary” remedy intended to preserve the status quo and is not granted as a matter of right.
Central to the court’s analysis was the district court’s application of the unclean hands doctrine. The doctrine permits a court to deny equitable relief where the party seeking relief has engaged in conduct that falls short of equitable standards and is directly related to the dispute at issue. The district court concluded that, based on the limited record developed at the preliminary injunction stage, there was sufficient evidence to raise concerns regarding Fetch!’s conduct in connection with aspects of its franchise system, including how certain franchise offerings were presented and implemented.
The Sixth Circuit did not independently resolve those underlying factual disputes and expressly noted that many issues remain subject to arbitration and further proceedings. Instead, it held that the district court acted within its discretion in determining that the record—at that stage—did not support the extraordinary remedy of a broad injunction. The court reiterated that credibility determinations and factual inferences drawn by the district court are entitled to substantial deference, particularly in expedited preliminary injunction proceedings.
The court also addressed related issues concerning legacy franchisees, including whether Fetch!’s decision to restrict system access could be viewed as a prior material breach or otherwise relevant to equitable considerations. Again, the Sixth Circuit declined to make definitive findings, but held that the district court’s conclusions were supported by the record and did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
Finally, the court clarified that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard in evaluating irreparable harm, but nonetheless affirmed the overall ruling on alternative grounds supported by the record.
Looking Forward
This decision underscores a critical but often underappreciated principle in franchise enforcement actions: the availability of injunctive relief is not determined solely by the existence of contractual violations, but also by equitable considerations tied to the franchisor’s conduct in relation to the dispute.
For franchisors, the most practical takeaway is not a change in the enforceability of Franchise Agreements, non-compete provisions, or intellectual property rights. Rather, the case highlights how disputes involving system-wide issues—particularly those raised collectively by franchisees—may be evaluated through an equitable lens at the preliminary injunction stage. Courts may be reluctant to grant broad injunctive relief where the record reflects unresolved factual disputes concerning system performance, disclosures, or operational consistency, especially when those issues are intertwined with pending arbitration or other proceedings.
At the same time, the opinion should be read in its procedural context. The court repeatedly emphasized that this was a preliminary ruling based on a limited evidentiary record, and that many of the underlying claims—including breach, misappropriation, and statutory issues—remain to be resolved. The decision does not determine ultimate liability, nor does it diminish the enforceability of well-drafted Franchise Agreements or the legitimacy of protecting brand standards and confidential information.
From a risk-management perspective, the case illustrates the importance of maintaining alignment between franchise disclosures, system performance representations, and operational execution, particularly when introducing new franchise models or support structures. It also reinforces the need for careful, coordinated responses when addressing franchisee dissatisfaction, including how and when system access or operational controls are modified.
More broadly, Fetch! Pet Care serves as a reminder that enforcement strategy matters. Even where franchisors have strong contractual positions, the timing, structure, and presentation of enforcement actions—especially in multi-franchisee disputes—can influence how courts assess requests for immediate equitable relief. Ensuring that enforcement efforts are supported by a clear and consistent factual record may be as important as the contractual provisions themselves when seeking injunctive remedies.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Partner at Buchalter LLP and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
