Are there any exceptions to the arbitration requirement for Dog Haus disputes?
Dog_Haus Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
Franchisee acknowledges and agrees that irreparable harm could be caused to Franchisor by Franchisee's violation of certain provisions of this Agreement and, as such, in addition to any other relief available at law or equity, Franchisor shall be entitled to obtain in any court of competent jurisdiction, without bond, restraining orders or temporary or permanent injunctions in order to enforce, among other items, the provisions of this Agreement relating to: (i) Franchisee's use of the Dog Haus Marks and Confidential Information; (ii) the restrictive covenants set forth in this Agreement; (iii) Franchisee's obligations on termination or expiration of this Agreement; (iv) disputes and controversies based on or arising under the Lanham Act, or otherwise involving the Dog Haus Marks, as now or hereafter amended; (v) disputes and controversies involving enforcement of the Franchisor's rights with respect to confidentiality under this Agreement; and (vi) disputes involving acts or omissions by Franchisee or its employees that constitute a violation of Applicable
Source: Item 22 — CONTRACTS (FDD page 87)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Dog Haus's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, while disputes generally go to arbitration, there are specific exceptions where Dog Haus can seek injunctive relief in a court of law. This means that Dog Haus can bypass arbitration and go directly to court to obtain restraining orders or temporary/permanent injunctions against a franchisee under certain circumstances.
These circumstances include issues related to the franchisee's use of Dog Haus's trademarks and confidential information, violations of non-compete agreements, and the franchisee's obligations upon termination or expiration of the franchise agreement. Dog Haus can also pursue court action for disputes arising under the Lanham Act (which deals with trademark protection) or involving the enforcement of confidentiality rights. Additionally, legal action is permitted for acts or omissions by the franchisee or their employees that violate applicable laws.
This clause favors Dog Haus, as it allows them to quickly seek court intervention to protect their brand and system without the potentially slower process of arbitration. However, the franchisee's sole remedy if such an injunction is entered is to seek its dissolution, and they waive all damage claims if the injunction is wrongfully issued. This means a franchisee may have limited recourse even if the injunction is later found to be unjustified.