Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—D. Colo.: Court denies print shop franchisor’s bid for preliminary injunction against former franchisee, (Aug 6, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found the dispute over post-termination operations failed to satisfy requirements for emergency equitable relief.

A Colorado federal court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by SpeedPro franchisor entities against a former Omaha franchisee, finding the franchisors failed to establish either a likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. The court concluded that the former franchisee had ceased operating as a SpeedPro studio when the franchise agreement expired and that the evidence did not show ongoing use of SpeedPro marks, trade secrets, or protected systems after termination. SpeedPro shops operate in a national franchise system for large-format graphics, printing, and signage services. The ruling also dissolved a previously entered temporary restraining order and denied as moot a motion seeking dissolution of that order (SP Franchising, LLC v. 3FM, L.L.C., No. 1:26-cv-02964-SKC-TPO (D. Colo. Aug. 3, 2026)).

Background. SP Franchising LLC and SP IP LLC sought preliminary injunctive relief against 3FM LLC and related defendants after the expiration of a franchise agreement governing operation of a SpeedPro Imaging Studio in Omaha, Nebraska. According to the order, the agreement expired on June 8, 2026, after defendants notified plaintiffs of their intent not to renew.

The court explained that upon expiration of the agreement, defendants' license rights ended, the Omaha location was de-branded, plaintiffs cut off defendants’ access to company email and the Corebridge system, and plaintiffs retrieved SpeedPro manuals and proprietary materials from the site. Plaintiffs’ chief executive officer, Paul Brewster, testified that plaintiffs had no evidence defendants continued performing SpeedPro-type work after the agreement terminated.

The order noted that defendants continued operating from the same Omaha location under 3FM, performing signage-related work in what defendants described as the “specialty construction” space. The parties disputed whether that work was distinct from services offered through the SpeedPro system and also disagreed over whether defendants had fully returned customer information and certain client artwork.

Likelihood of success analysis. The court held that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on their breach-of-contract claim based on allegations that defendants were competing within a contractually defined restricted area.

Central to that conclusion was the agreement’s definition of a “Studio” as a retail SpeedPro Imaging Studio operated pursuant to a valid license agreement. The court found it undisputed that the Omaha location ceased operating as a SpeedPro studio when the license agreement ended on June 8, 2026, and that defendants had de-branded the location.

The court further found that the agreement did not prohibit defendants from continuing to conduct business from the former franchise location and that plaintiffs had not shown defendants were operating within 75 miles of a qualifying SpeedPro “Studio” as defined by the contract. As a result, plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on that aspect of their contract claim.

Trademark, trade secret and cybersquatting claims. The court found that the plaintiffs had not shown a reasonable likelihood of success on claims for trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, or violations of the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. The evidence showed that alleged use of SpeedPro marks and trade secrets ceased as of June 8, 2026. The court pointed to evidence that defendants de-branded their operations, provided plaintiffs with an Excel spreadsheet containing client contact information, surrendered proprietary materials, lost access to SpeedPro systems and email accounts, canceled the SpeedPro trade name, deactivated the SpeedPro Omaha Instagram account, and did not use the “speedproomaha.com” domain to send or receive emails or host a public-facing website. The court was not convinced plaintiffs had adequately described or demonstrated the existence of trade secrets, although it assumed trade-secret status for purposes of the motion because plaintiffs had not established irreparable harm or likelihood of success in any event.

Irreparable harm findings. Turning to irreparable harm, the court described that requirement as the “single most important prerequisite” for a preliminary injunction and found plaintiffs had not met their burden.

The court acknowledged ongoing disputes regarding the return of customer information and client artwork but found the evidence showed defendants had returned substantial client contact information. The court further found no evidence that defendants’ actions prevented plaintiffs from contacting any specific customer. The order also noted testimony that prior client artwork could be obtained directly from clients.

Based on the record, the court concluded that plaintiffs’ claimed injuries were theoretical rather than actual and imminent. The court additionally found that monetary damages could compensate plaintiffs for harms arising from difficulties in contacting customers, obtaining artwork, or any alleged use of customer information.

The Case is No. 1:26-cv-02964-SKC-TPO.

Judge: Crews, S.

Attorneys: Brittany Mallow (Thompson Hine LLP) for SP Franchising, LLC. Michael Daniel Braunstein (Zarco Einhorn Salkowski, P.A.) for 3FM, L.L.C.

Companies: SP Franchising, LLC; 3FM, LLC

Cases: FranchisingDistribution ColoradoNews