Given the abatements of the non-tax clause, which allow the defendant to claim tax preparation benefits from former Liberty clients outside the geographic limit or to carry out another similar invitation without restriction, the argument before the Court contains no indication that the restriction at issue will weigh heavily on the defendant`s ability to earn a living. See Brainware, 808 F. Supp. 2d to 826 (“[T]he is not a case in which the non-compete clause prohibits the worker from working for a competitor in virtually all functions.” (between internal quotes omitted). Nor are there any obvious public policies that are affected by the non-invitation provision we are talking about here. The complainants also bore their burden of showing that the balance of difficulties weighs in their favour. Although facilities without any intervention, transfer, restitution, impose limited competition restriction, non-participation and confidentiality of the provisions of franchise agreements, impose on the defendant, by requiring him to pass on material to the applicants, by preventing him from working in a tax preparation operation on franchised sites, or by recovering that activity from former customers located in the prohibited area, the court, by granting such an exemption, would respect the contractual obligations that were freely agreed and for which the defendant would obtain the benefits of the franchise agreement. See z.B. JTH Tax, 514 F.

Supp. 2d at 825-26 (give a permanent injunction on a similar basis). In these circumstances, the restrictions imposed on the defendant by the injunction sought do not predominate over the persistent harm caused to the plaintiffs` overvalue and commercial relations. An interesting comparison with Abikarram was made in JTH Tax, Inc. d/b/a Liberty Tax Service, et al. v. Freedom Tax, Inc., et al. with the same franchisor.

3:19-cv-00085-RGJ, 2019 WL 2062519 (W.D.KY May 9, 2019). In The Freedom Tax (which has nothing to do with Abikarram`s freedom tax), the Western District of Kentucky rejected Liberty Tax`s attempt to use the Defend Secrets Trade Act (“DTSA”) to effectively impose a non-compete clause against the “General Manager” of a former franchisee, Adisa Selimovic, who had never signed the Noncompete. Ms. Selimovic had been mentioned as an “officer” on the franchisee`s corporate documents filed with the Kentucky of Secret Secretary, but had no interest in the franchisee. The court rejected Liberty Tax`s argument that the former CEO should be invited by the operation of a competing company and stated: “If the court issues an injunction that would effectively enforce the broad non-compete clause of franchise agreements against Selimovic, who was not a signatory to the franchise agreements, it would unduly impair Selimovic`s ability to earn a living in the Louisville area.” Id. at 14. [franchise agreement] unequivocally provides that, at the end of the franchise agreement, the defendant cannot lease the premises to a person to provide tax preparation services . . . and the defendant has not denied that it is violating that provision.

In addition, according to Fed.R.C.Civ.P. 65 (d) (2) may be the subject of an injunction against “any other person who actively participates in the offensive party or its officers, agents or employees.” The evidence before the court indicates that these tax advisors on the defendant`s website, if not its employees, act at least “in active concert or in participation with” the defendants and are therefore subject to the alliances we are debating here.