Rooterman LLC v. Belegu et al. (24-cv-13015).

Rooterman accused Belegu and three companies that he operates of infringing Rooterman’s trademarks and of breaching contracts following termination of Beluga’s franchise agreements.  Judge Saris granted in part and denied in part Rooterman’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Rooterman offers a variety of plumbing services via a franchise model under federally registered “Rooterman” marks.  Belegu entered into thirteen franchise agreements, in his own name or on behalf of companies he owns, to operate franchises in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  The agreements required the franchisee to cease using Rooterman trademarks and remove all on-line advertising bearing such marks within 30 days of termination of the agreements, and included confidentiality, nonsolicitation and noncompetition clauses.

Rooterman terminated the franchises in September 2024 for non-payment of franchise fees and royalties.  Rooterman alleges that Beluga opened two new businesses that directly compete, and that he continued to use Rooterman marks and URL’s.

Looking to the preliminary injunction motion, Judge Saris found that Rooterman had failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, a requirement for injunctive relief.  She noted Belegu’s representation that he would discontinue use of the marks and demonstrated efforts to change the advertising to accomplish this.  She likewise denied the motion with respect to the employee non-solicitation provision of the franchise agreements, finding that no evidence of a breach (or of a likely future breach) was presented.

Judge Saris did, however, grant the motion with respect to the noncompetition provision, noting that Belegu’s two new companies provided plumbing services that overlapped with those provided under the franchise agreements.  She further found that Rooterman had shown that the provision is necessary to protect Rooterman’s legitimate business interests in its confidential information, trade secrets and goodwill, a requirement under Massachusetts law.  Rooterman provided Belegu with materials such as operations manual, marketing playbooks, vendor lists and the like, which met the criteria.  Further, the injunction sought was limited to three years and to the zip codes where the franchises were located.  Judge Saris found the geographic scope reasonable, but limited the temporal scope to two years in recognition of the limits set by Massachusetts statue.

Judge Saris ordered the payment of bond to secure the injunction, but rejected Belegu’s demand for $3 million as unsupported.  She instead ordered $300,000 sufficient.