Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. v. Atomic Pawz Inc., 2:25-cv-11568

Fetch! Pet Care, a franchisor of pet care services, sued 36 former franchisees (individuals/companies) for breach of contract, trademark infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and conspiracy to interfere with business relationships.
The defendants are divided into three groups: legacy franchisees under the original model (Fetch! 1.0), those under an updated business model (Fetch! 2.0), and those with an added managed-services agreement.
Plaintiff alleges defendants breached noncompete clauses, used Fetch!'s confidential information and trademarks in competing businesses, and coordinated to leave the franchise system.
Defendants counter that Fetch! acted in bad faith, particularly in marketing the 2.0 franchises, failed to provide required disclosures, and materially breached before defendants’ own alleged breaches.
The parties are in ongoing arbitration; Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to bar defendants from using its information and operating competing businesses while arbitration proceeds.
The court issued a temporary restraining order and now considers whether to grant broader preliminary injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Likelihood of Success	Defendants breached contracts/trade secrets/trademarks	Fetch! first breached or acted in bad faith; unclean hands	Plaintiff failed to show likely success, especially due to Fetch!’s unclean hands re: 2.0; some likelihood on trade secrets/trademarks against legacy group
Irreparable Injury	Loss of goodwill, customer base, competitive harm imminent	Harm to Fetch! speculative, already done, or compensable	No irreparable injury established; damages are calculable/too speculative
Harm to Others	Harm to Fetch! outweighs defendants’ loss	Injunction would destroy defendants’ businesses	Hardship greater for defendants; injunction denied in bulk
Public Interest	Enforcing contractual duties supports public interest	Franchisees were forced to compete by Fetch!’s actions	Public interest neutral; misconduct/causation uncertain

Certified Restoration Dry Cleaning Network, L.L.C. v. Tenke Corp., 511 F.3d 535 (6th Cir. 2007) (standard for preliminary injunction in business/franchise disputes)
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) (preliminary injunction is extraordinary remedy; irreparable injury requirement)
Performance Unlimited v. Questar Publishers, 52 F.3d 1373 (6th Cir. 1995) (unclean hands doctrine and harm standard when arbitration is pending)
Planet Aid v. City of St. Johns, 782 F.3d 318 (6th Cir. 2015) (balancing four factors for injunctive relief)
BPS Clinical Lab’ys v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 217 Mich. App. 687 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (elements of tortious interference under Michigan law)
Barilla v. Patella, 144 Ohio App. 3d 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (elements of tortious interference under Ohio law)
Libertarian Nat’l Comm., Inc. v. Saliba, 116 F.4th 530 (6th Cir. 2024) (elements of trademark infringement)