What is the meaning of 'estoppel' as it relates to the affirmative defenses claimed by Clean Your Dirty Face?
Clean_Your_Dirty_Face Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint and affirmative defenses claiming failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that the claims were based on the doctrines of mootness, estoppel and laches; and that the claims were barred by Plaintiff's failure to mitigate damages.
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD page 10)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Clean Your Dirty Face's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the term 'estoppel' is mentioned in the context of a lawsuit, Make-Up Designory v. Shama Patel, MUD Franchising, LLC and Anjmanj, Inc., where Clean Your Dirty Face was a defendant. In this case, the defendants, which included Clean Your Dirty Face, used 'estoppel' as one of their affirmative defenses.
In legal terms, 'estoppel' is a doctrine that prevents a party from denying something they previously stated or implied was true, especially if someone else acted on that statement to their detriment. For Clean Your Dirty Face, claiming estoppel as an affirmative defense suggests they believed the plaintiff, Make-Up Designory, had acted in a way that contradicted their claims or had led Clean Your Dirty Face to believe certain facts were true, upon which Clean Your Dirty Face relied.
For a prospective Clean Your Dirty Face franchisee, this litigation context indicates that the franchisor has faced intellectual property disputes in the past. While the case was dismissed, the inclusion of 'estoppel' as a defense highlights the importance of understanding trademark rights and potential challenges. It would be prudent for a potential franchisee to inquire about the specifics of this case and any ongoing intellectual property concerns to fully assess the risks associated with the Clean Your Dirty Face brand and system.