Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. v. Florida Pop, LLC et al

On November 11, 2022, Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen, Inc. (“Plaintiff”), represented by Jessica S. Erenbaum and Michael D. Joblove of Genovese Joblove & Battista, filed a contract lawsuit against Florida Pop, LLC, Pop Restaurant Holdings, LLC, Guillermo Perales (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged trademark infringement and breach of franchise agreement. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, with Judge Jose E. Martinez presiding.

In the complaint, the plaintiff claimed, “Popeyes owns and was the first to adopt and use the Marks as trademarks and service marks and all right, title and interest in and to the Marks and the design, decor and image of POPEYES® restaurants remains vested solely in Popeyes in Miami, Florida.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Pursuant to franchise agreements between Popeyes and its franchisees, including Defendants, Popeyes grants its franchisees a limited license and authority to use and display the Marks, but only in the manner prescribed by Popeyes. In no event is a franchisee authorized to use the Marks after the expiration or termination of its franchise.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Under a Limited License Agreement (‘License Agreement’) executed by the parties, Popeyes granted Defendants a limited right to operate #12050 until October 12, 2022. The License Agreement further provided that if Defendants failed to operate #12050 in accordance with those specifications, the right to operate #12050 would terminate October 12, 2022 or earlier.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Defendants breached the Agreements by failing to operate and/or maintain the Restaurants in conformity and compliance with Popeyes’ standards and specifications with regard to food safety and brand standards.”

Plaintiff then alleged, “By letters dated October 3, 2022 and October 17, 2022, Popeyes notified Defendants of their defaults under the #11942 Franchise Agreement and demanded that they cure the defaults within the time periods set forth therein (collectively the ‘#11942 Notices of Default’).” 

The plaintiff additionally alleged, “Not only did Defendants fail to cure the defaults as set forth in the #11942 Notices of Default, but they committed additional defaults on or about October 28, 2022 by failing to operate #11942 in accordance with critical food safety standards.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “As a result of the Defendants’ failure to timely cure the defaults under the #11942 Notices of Default and their subsequent default, the #11942 Franchise Agreement terminated effective November 2, 2022.”

The plaintiff further alleged, “In violation of the Franchise Agreements, Defendants continue to hold themselves out to the public as owning and operating genuine and authorized POPEYES® Restaurants by continuing to display and/or use the Marks at the Restaurants subsequent to the Franchise Agreements’ termination, and they have failed to de-identify the locations.”

Additionally the plaintiff alleged, “Upon seeing the familiar Marks, through Defendants’ unauthorized display thereof, consumers will be deceived into concluding that the Restaurants are sponsored or endorsed by Popeyes, and bear the Marks pursuant to Popeyes’ authority and permission.”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Popeyes will suffer serious, immediate, and irreparable harm if Defendants’ willful infringement of the Marks at the Restaurants are not immediately enjoined.”

Plaintiff presented ten claims for relief, including alleged violation of the Lanham Act, false designation, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of franchise agreement, and breach of guaranty.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief along with an award of money, actual, punitive, and compensatory damages.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.