FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Tennessee
DecidedDecember 17, 2024
Docket2:24-cv-02867
StatusUnknown

This text of FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC (FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC, (W.D. Tenn. 2024).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION

FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE ) CORPORATION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-2867 v. ) ) DONMARCOS, LLC, DONALD HENSON ) and MARK PATTON, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER GRANTING DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff Fantastic Sams Franchise Corporation’s (“Plaintiff’s” or “Fantastic Sams’”) Motion for Default Judgment, filed on December 16, 2024. (ECF No. 29.) Pursuant to Rule 55(b)(2), the Court finds the Motion is well-taken, and it is therefore GRANTED. Based on Plaintiffs’ Motion, the December 17, 2024, Hearing, and the entire record in the case, the Court finds as follows: 1. On November 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants DonMarcos, LLC, Donald Henson, and Mark Patton (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff asserted five counts: (1) violation of the Lanham Act for monetary damages; (2) violation of the Lanham Act for injunctive relief; (3) breach of contract, specifically of a post-term covenant not to compete; (4) breach of contract, specifically identification as a Fantastic Sams hair salon; and (5) common law unfair competition. (Id. at PageID 14–18.) 2. Plaintiff is a business which franchises Fantastic Sams salons to franchisees. (Id. at PageID 4.) Franchisees “are licensed to use Fantastic Sams trade names, service marks, and trademarks and to operate under the Fantastic Sams franchise system (the ‘Fantastic Sams System’ or ‘System’).” (Id.) This System includes “using specially designed spaces with specific

equipment layouts, interior and exterior accessories, identification schemes, products, management programs, standards, specifications, proprietary marks, and information.” (Id. (citing ECF No. 1-2 at PageID 28).) During a franchisee relationship, Plaintiff provides its franchisees with a manual, and conducts periodic training sessions, on the details of the System. (Id. at PageID 5.) Plaintiff owns the following marks and related logos: a. Fantastic Sams Cut and Color, No. 4,924,187, 4,924,189, 4,924,190 b. F/S, Registration Nos. 5,019,015; 5,087,286

(Id. at PageID 7.)1

3. The relationship between Plaintiff and its franchisees is governed by the terms and conditions of a franchise agreement. (Id. at PageID 6.) Each franchise agreement contains both an “in-term covenant” and a “post-term covenant,” where: a. “In-term covenant” is an agreement by the franchisee “not to be involved in any business that offers hair cutting, hair coloring, and/or hair care services and/or related products during the term of their franchise agreement.” (Id.) b. “Post-term covenant” is the same agreement, but for two years after the termination of the agreement, within a five mile radius of the franchised salon. (Id.)

1 Plaintiff alleges they own the marks and logos for “Fantastic Sams Color and Cut.” (ECF No. 1 at PageID 7.) However, in searching the five registration numbers alleged, the Court could only find marks and logos related to “Fantastic Sams Cut and Color” and “F/S.” 4. On June 17, 2024, third party MACALLS, LLC and DonMarcos entered into a Salon License Renewal Agreement (the “License Agreement”). (Id. at PageID 8 (citing ECF No. 1-2).) The License Agreement, which was later assigned to Plaintiff, allowed DonMarcos the right to use the Fantastic Sams system until June 17, 2024. (Id.) DonMarcos operated Salon #10332.

(Id.) As part of the License Agreement, DonMarcos was unconditionally obligated to pay a weekly licensing fee ($292.64), a weekly national advertising fee ($135.46), and contributions to a regional advertising fund (variable). (Id. at PageID 9.) Non-payment would be considered material breach, as per the License Agreement. (Id.) 5. In the event of termination, DonMarcos would be required to: a. “immediately cease using the Marks, trade dress, business format, signs, structures and forms of advertising indicative of the Fantastic Sams System and Fantastic Sams products;” b. De-identify the salon “to distinguish the Salon Location from a Fantastic Sams Salon”;

c. Pay all sums owed to Plaintiff; and d. Continue to pay its weekly licensing and national advertising fees for the rest of the License Agreement Period. (Id. at PageID 10 (citing ECF No. 1-2 at PageID 46–47).) The License Agreement contains the same post-term covenant described above. 6. On February 14, 2024, Plaintiff informed DonMarcos the License Agreement was terminated after Donmarcos failed to make its weekly payments. (Id.) On February 23, 2024, Plaintiff initiated arbitration against Defendants, seeking final termination of the License Agreement, money damages, and enforcement of the post-term covenant. (Id. at PageID 11.) Defendants did not participate. (Id.) The arbitrator found Plaintiff properly terminated the License Agreement and ordered Defendants to pay awards in totaling $70,309.74. (Id. (citing ECF No. 1- 3).) The arbitrator also ordered Defendants to comply with the post-term covenant. (Id.) On December 12, 2024, the Desoto County, Mississippi Circuit Court confirmed the arbitration award

in all respects. (See ECF No. 27-1.) 7. Plaintiffs allege Defendants continue to operate their salon at the same location where they once franchised Plaintiff’s store. (Id. at PageID 12.) Plaintiff alleges Defendants hold themselves out to the public as a Fantastic Sams location by retaining signage and possibly performing Fantastic Sams-approved salon treatments. Plaintiff alleges this confuses the public and violates Defendants’ non-compete covenants. 8. On November 13, 2024, Defendants were served with a copy of the Complaint and Summons. (ECF Nos. 11–13.) 9. On November 15, 2024, the Court set a preliminary injunction hearing for December 4, 2024. (ECF No. 14.) The Court required Plaintiff to serve Defendants with notice

of the hearing. (See id.) The hearing was moved to December 17, 2024. (See ECF No. 22.) Defendants served all Defendants with notice of the December 17 hearing on December 13, 2024. (See ECF Nos. 27, 28.) 10. “Defendants have consistently refused to communicate with Fantastic Sams or its counsel for many months.” (ECF No. 29 at PageID 210.) 11. Defendant has not answered or otherwise appeared in the case. 12. On December 9, 2024, on motion from Plaintiff, the Clerk of Court entered default against Defendant. (See ECF Nos. 25. 26.) 13. Because of Defendant’s default, it has admitted the well-pleaded factual allegations contained in the Complaint. See Trustees of U.A. 614 Health & Welfare Fund v. Wooten Mech., LLC, No. 2:23-CV-2071-MSN-ATC, 2023 WL 6544913, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 6, 2023); see also Tripodi v. Welch, 810 F.3d 761, 764 (10th Cir. 2016) (“By his default, [the defendant] relieved

[the plaintiff] from having to prove the complaint’s factual allegations.”). 14. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1121(a) and 28 U.S.C §§ 1331, 1338(a) because this action relates to federally registered trademarks and copyrights. (Id. at PageID 4.) The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because their principal place of business is in Collierville, Tennessee, which is in the Western District. (Id.) Venue is proper because the Defendants operate their salon in Collierville, Tennessee. (Id.) 15. The Court finds, based upon allegations contained in the Complaint, that Defendant is liable for Lanham Act and breach of contract violations. Plaintiff has adequately shown violations of the Lanham Act from its registered trademarks, Defendants’ continued operation of the salon, and Defendants’ continued use of the marks.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

La Quinta Corp. v. Heartland Properties LLC
603 F.3d 327 (Sixth Circuit, 2010)
KFC Corp. v. Lilleoren
821 F. Supp. 1191 (W.D. Kentucky, 1993)
Tripodi v. Welch
810 F.3d 761 (Tenth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
FANTASTIC SAMS FRANCHISE CORPORATION v. DONMARCOS, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fantastic-sams-franchise-corporation-v-donmarcos-llc-tnwd-2024.