The applicants make another relevant argument in favour of their claims of irreparable harm, namely that their relationships with other franchisees are tainted. A franchisee could be harmed if it had difficulty attracting another franchisee to the area that is now served by a competitor, Domino`s Pizza v. EI-Tan, Inc., 1995 WL 367893, 3 (N.D. Okla. 1995), or if its franchise system as a whole has been undermined. Quizno`s Corp. Kampendahl, 2002 WL 1012997, `7 (N.D.III. 2002). (Franchisees would be irretrievably aggrieved by the denial of an injunction, since a message would be sent to other franchisees indicating that their franchise agreements could not protect the franchisee and be ignored); Frisch`s Restaurants, Inc.
v. Elby`s Big Boy, 670 F.2d 642 (6th Cir. 1982). We now turn to the issue of irreparable damage. The applicants state, and the defendant does not dispute that the franchise agreement states that “franchise acknowledges that a breach of one of the terms of this section 15 would result in irreparable harm to BASKIN-ROBBINS, for which there can be no proper legal remedy. . . . (Agreement at 15.8). The non-competition clause at issue is in section 15. This provision, while persuasive, is inconclusive for the finding of persistent irreparable harm.
Refusal to conclude that the termination of the franchise agreement by a franchisee by a franchisee that contained a non-compete clause and the installation of a competing glacier on the same site would cause irreparable harm to Baskin Robbins. On March 21, 1996, Jay Bhavani, Inc. and Baskin-Robbins USA entered into a franchise and sublease agreement for a Baskin Robbins retail glacier in Glenview, Illinois. The defendant signed the agreement as a franchisee on behalf of Jay Bhavani, Inc. The agreement contains a non-competition clause: the applicants argue in their last letter of several letters that S. 16600 does not apply to non-California franchises. Gilchrist Machinery Co. v. Komatses American Corp., 601 F. Supp.
1192, 1201 (S.D. Miss 1984). But this refers to the California Franchise Relations Act, which, in its explicit terms, does not apply to non-governmental deductibles. We are not quoted in a comparable term, which refers to page 16600, and since the defendant did not have an opportunity to respond, we do not rely on that assertion.