MIAMI – Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has filed a federal lawsuit against several former franchise owners alleging they breached franchise agreements by continuing to operate restaurants using company trademarks without authorization after their franchise agreements were terminated.
Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen has filed a federal lawsuit against Florida Pop, Pop Restaurant Holdings, Pop Investments, Pronto Consolidated and Guillermo Perales.
According to court documents, the defendants previously owned 52 Popeyes franchise restaurants. The lawsuit claims the defendants were informed their franchise agreements were terminated and they no longer had the rights to use Popeyes trademarks and systems. Despite the termination of their contracts, Popeyes says the defendants continued to operate their restaurants, and on March 15, 2023, Popeyes filed a lawsuit against them.
Popeyes states that to resolve the lawsuit, on April 3, 2023, Popeyes and the defendants entered into a Limited License Agreement which would allow the defendants to operate several of the restaurants until September 30, 2023, to give them time to sell the other restaurants and settle outstanding payments. However, the defendants allegedly breached the agreement by continuing to operate some restaurants beyond the agreed-upon date, using the Popeyes trademark without authorization and failing to return operational manuals. Despite demands from Popeyes, the defendants refused to comply with their post-termination obligations and continued to operate their restaurants using Popeyes trademarks and systems.
Popeyes says the defendants' continued use of the company's trademark and systems without authorization is likely to cause consumer confusion and deception. The unauthorized display can mislead customers into believing that the defendants' restaurants are endorsed by Popeyes, potentially causing substantial damages and irreparable harm to Popeyes' goodwill and reputation.
The lawsuit claims the defendants' actions constitute violations of the Lanham Act, including copyright infringement, false designation as well as common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, and breach of the limited license agreement..
Popeyes is seeking both preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting the defendants from using the company's marks or any related materials at their restaurants. Additionally, the injunctions call for the recall of all items bearing the marks and access for Popeyes to alter the physical appearance of the defendants' restaurants.
Popeyes is also seeking an order preventing the defendants from owning, operating, or having any interest in any chicken restaurant" or "disqualifying restaurant" within a ten-mile radius of the restaurants for a two-year period. Finally, Popeyes is demanding a report from the defendants detailing how they will comply with any injunction or order issued by the court.
Popeyes is also seeking compensation for three times the actual damages sustained and punitive damages due to the willful nature of the defendants' actions, lost profits, plus interest, court costs, attorney fees and other relief. The company is being represented by Michal D. Joblove and Aaron S. Blynn of Venable in Miami.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, case number 1:23-cv-23955