Does the Minnesota Amendment prevent Ben Jerrys from seeking injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause loss or damages?
Ben_Jerrys Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
- 26.10 Nothing herein contained shall bar the right of either party to obtain, without invoking the ADR Process, injunctive relief against threatened conduct that will cause it loss or damages (including those matters set forth in the second sentence of Section 26.2, as well as potential violations of the terms of Sections 8, 9, 10, 14, 16 and 17 of this Agreement) under the usual equity rules, including the applicable rules for obtaining restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
Source: Item 22 — CONTRACTS (FDD pages 133–134)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Ben Jerrys's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the Minnesota Amendment to the franchise agreement does not bar Ben & Jerry's from seeking injunctive relief against threatened conduct that could cause them loss or damages. Specifically, the agreement states that nothing within it prevents Ben Jerrys from pursuing injunctive relief under standard equity rules, including those for obtaining restraining orders and preliminary injunctions.
This provision ensures that Ben Jerrys retains the ability to take swift legal action to prevent potential harm to their brand or business interests. For a franchisee, this means that Ben Jerrys can seek court intervention to stop actions that violate the franchise agreement and threaten to cause financial or reputational damage.
This right to seek injunctive relief is a common practice in franchising, allowing franchisors to protect their trademarks, trade secrets, and overall business operations. The Minnesota Amendment clarifies that while certain aspects of the franchise relationship are governed by Minnesota law, Ben Jerrys's ability to seek injunctive relief remains intact, providing an important legal recourse.