Meineke Franchise Agreement

Go to to learn more about the Meineke franchise. At some point during the franchise agreement, the defendants breached their obligations by not paying the franchise and advertising fees and by not submitting weekly management reports. (Compl. On December 15, 2010, Meineke sent a notice of delay to the defendants and informed them that Meineke could terminate its franchise licence if they did not resettle the losses within five (5) business days. (Compl. Meineke then informed the defendants that it would continue the December 15, 2010 insolvency declaration and that it would give the defendants an additional 60 (60) days to deal with their defaults. (Compl. The defendants were unable to cause the failures and Meineke announced its licence effective April 4, 2011. (Compl).

On May 26, 2011, Meineke negotiated the terms of the defendant`s licence duty-free reinstatement and presented the defendants with a letter of restitutio integrum outlining the terms of the reintroduction, including the requirement for the defendants to execute the restitutio in integrum letter within five days of receipt. (Compl. So far, the defendants have not executed the letter of restitutio in integrum. (Compl. 30). Fourth, the granting of the injunction is in the public interest, as the defendant`s unauthorized use of Meineke`s name could mislead and disorient the public. In addition, the defendant would continue to compete unfairly with Meineke`s authorized franchisees. Meineke franchise recently received the 1st prize in the automotive repair and maintenance category and #50 of all 500 franchises. Meineke is a Forbes Top 20 franchise for money, a top 50 franchise for veterans and the direct franchise #36 of 100. We have awarded close to US$1,000,000 in franchise rebates to Veterans.

Please click here and complete our franchise application and speak with a representative of the franchise. Meineke expressly revoked the authorization to use the mark in its termination statement to the defendants, and the defendants accepted Meineke`s offer to resume the licence when they did not execute the letter of restitutio integrum. In the judgment and litigation department, the Tribunal held that “the continuation of the use of the mark by a brand whose trademark licence has been revoked responds to the likelihood of a confusion test and constitutes a violation of the mark.” Id. to 1492. For similar reasons, the continued use of telephone numbers used in connection with the franchisor`s name and trademarks also creates a risk of customer confusion. See Cottman Transmission Systems, Inc., v. Melody, 851 F. Supp. 660 (E.D.Pa 1994).

The Tribunal finds that the defendants` use of the Meineke trademark to provide almost identical services where the De Meineke franchise acted with the same contact information (including telephone numbers) probably indicates to the Court that the defendant`s continued conduct may lead to confusion in the origin of the goods or services. The court is not convinced of the defendant`s argument that customers and potential customers are probably not confused, but rather believe that the store is a former Meineke store and is no longer operated as such. Given the standard of verification in the pre-prescription phase, the Tribunal finds that the evidence admitted by the defendants regarding the unauthorized use of the Meineke trademark demonstrates that Meineke is likely to be successful on the merits of its trademark infringement action. In addition, Meineke has a large commercial access site that contains the automotive franchise operating manual, an interactive forum and current and informative publications. Recently, an online business planning tool has also been added to help franchisees understand weaknesses in financial or operational performance through performance calibration and proposes specific action plans to address these weaknesses.