Executive summary: ( no longer than 150 words)
Franchises are one of the most common businesses which exists in today’s world. However there are often disputes regarding the nature of the relationship and the reality of the earnings. Franchisees are often induced into purchasing a franchise on the basis of its overall revenue but when in practice the profits do not seem to be what the franchisor has disclosed. This is present in the case of Hey Joe vs Bumble Bee lunches in which Anne the franchisee has purchased a franchise from Hey Joe . The franchisee had been misrepresented on true figures but also there had been non-disclosure of previous history regarding the industry. However in favour of Hey Joe, there had been a breach of contract…show more content… This includes the methods, operation manuals and procedures of the business i.e how to take orders, how to make and purchase ingredients, how to deal with customer’s, how to dispose of waste etc .We can assume that these methods and procedures of business are seen as confidential information or intellectual property as it is designed for only franchisee’s of hey Joe to be used. Confidentiality was defined in the case COCO V AN CLARK and in this case all the factors had concluded that Hey joe’s information was confidential . it contains the necessary quality of confidence and was not public knowledge or publicly known. Hey joe had a specific way of dealing in business that was not disclosed towards the public .After Anne terminated the contract, she then exploits her acquired knowledge into her new business, Bumble bee lunches . Anne is using the operation manuals, methodologies , equipment and the van under Bumble Bee lunches , thus there may be a correlation between how Hey Joe run their lunch runs and how Bumble bee lunches run their lunch runs. Therefore Anne can be liable for breaching misuse of confidential information and intellectual property. Hey joe is capable of launching an injunction against BB as there is a connection between Anne’s acquired IP/ confidential information and the way her business is…show more content… Hey joe has “HJ” as a logo in a distinctive yellow background. Instead of “HJ” , bumble bee lunches has changed it to “BB” , although the name is distinct, the same style background and colouring is seen. Customers of the public can view these two businesses to be of the same origin as they have a similar mark.This is evidence in the case Muzz Buzz Franchising pty ltd v jb holdings (2010) ltd , where although the two shops had different names, the same style existed which fooled the public into thinking they are of similar brand. It is stated that Hey joe has been operating for 20 years, they have already established a well fortunate trademark and goodwill for their company . Assuming they are a registered trademark, Under the Trademarks ACT 2002 ANNE may be liable for under section Hey joe may be awarded damages for the misusage by Bumble bee Lunches. Bumble Bee lunches may have damaged Hey Joe’s reputation or goodwill but also were stealing customers