PINKBERRY Franchise Complaints
Pinkberry franchise complaints include fraud, breach of contract, unfair business practices, violation of California’s Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law, misrepresentation, and violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Are you familiar with Pinkberry and the Pinkberry franchise program? Please share your experience, opinion or insight below.
(UnhappyFranchisee.Com) Pinkberry is perhaps the trendiest, most-hyped franchise opportunity to come on the scene in recent years.
Pinkberry Ventures, Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
There are currently more than 100 franchised Pinkberry stores.
Pinkberry has also been a magnet for controversy, from early charges of false advertising (for claims it marketed its product as frozen yogurt when it wasn’t, technically, yogurt) to the recent conviction of its founder for severely beating a homeless man with a tire iron.
Pinkberry Battling Franchisees in Court
Recently, it has come to our attention that Pinkberry’s relationship with some of its franchise owners is more sour than its tart yogurt.
We have heard rumors that franchise owners object to their treatment at the hands of the franchisor.
There have also been complaints about its business practices.
This year, Pinkberry was required to disclose two franchise lawsuits in its Franchise Disclosure Document (FDD).
In the first dispute, Pinkberry Ventures, Inc. terminated the four license agreements of franchisee Penninsular Group, LLC, and sued for non-payment of royalties and marketing fees, breach of contract and trademark infringement.
Penninsular Group, LLC filed a counterclaim alleging fraud, breach of contract, unfair business practices and violation of California’s Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law.
Here’s the disclosure in the 2013 Pinkberry FDD:
Pinkberrv Ventures Inc. Plaintiff v. Penninsular Group. LLC (United States District Court Central District of California Case No. CV13-021 filed March 25 2013). After terminating defendant’s four License Agreements following defendant’s failure to pay royalty and marketing fees. We brought this action for breach of contract and trademark infringement to recover fees due under the license agreements injunctive relief and treble damages for infringement of our trademarks and recovery of our reasonable attornev’s fees. On June 6, 2013 defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim alleges fraud. breach of contract, unfair business practices and violation of California’s Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law and seeks unspecified damages or alternatively rescission, restitution and reasonable attomev’s fees. The parties have submitted a stipulation to the court requesting that the court appoint a Special Master to hear and decide the case pursuant to the dispute resolution procedures in defendant’s license agreements. The time for us to respond to the counterclaims has not yet expired but we intend to vigorously deny the allegations in the counterclaim and prosecute our case. On July 22, 2013 we filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim in its entirety. A hearing on the motion to dismiss has been scheduled for August 26. 2013.
In the second dispute, Pinkberry Ventures, Inc. stated that it had terminated the three license agreements of franchisee Pinkberry of Florida Inc. It was suing for non-payment of royalties and marketing fees, breach of contract and trademark infringement.
Pinkberry of Florida Inc. filed a counterclaim alleging fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair business practices, violation of California’s Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law and violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
Here’s the disclosure in the 2013 Pinkberry FDD:
Pinkberry Ventures. Inc. Plaintiff v. Pinkberry of Florida Inc.; Does 1 through 10 inclusive. Defendant (United States District Court Central District of California Case No. CV13-02662 filed April 16 2013). After terminating defendant’s License Agreements for three Pinkberry shops following defendant’s failure to pay royalty and marketing fees, we brought this action for breach of contract and trademark infringement to recover fees due under the license agreements, injunctive relief and treble damages for infringement of our trademarks and recovery of our reasonable attorney’s fees. On July 15, 2013 defendant filed an answer and counterclaim. The counterclaim alleges fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, unfair business practices, violation of California’s Franchise Relations Act and Franchise Investment Law and violation of Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and seeks unspecified damages and /or rescission restitution and reasonable attorney’s fees. The time for us to respond to the counterclaims has not vet expired but we intend to vigorously deny the allegations in the counterclaim and prosecute our case. We also intend to file a motion to dismiss the counterclaim in its entirety by the August 9, 2013 filing deadline.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH PINKBERRY & THE PINKBERRY FRANCHISE OPPORTUNITY? PLEASE SHARE A COMMENT BELOW.
TAGS: Pinkberry, Pinkberry franchise, Pinkberry franchise complaints, Pinkberry lawsuit, Pinkberry franchise lawsuits, Pinkberry sued, Pinkberry litigation, Pinkberry Ventures Inc
The post PINKBERRY Franchise Complaints appeared first on Unhappy Franchisee. Reposting this content without prior expressed written permission by Relentless, Inc. is strictly prohibited.