Virginia Federal Court Enters Unopposed Default Judgment Against 7-Eleven Franchisee

Lathrop GPM
Contact

Lathrop GPM

A federal court in Virginia recently entered default judgment in favor of 7-Eleven, Inc. against a former franchisee, Sisara LLC. 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Sisara, LLC, 2025 WL 2453804 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 2025).

7-Eleven and Sisara entered into a franchise agreement in August 2021 for Sisara’s operation of a 7-Eleven store in Roanoke, Virginia. 7-Eleven and Sisara also executed a promissory note under which 7-Eleven agreed to finance portions of Sisara’s startup costs including the franchise fee. Within two years, 7-Eleven sent Sisara numerous notices of alleged franchise agreement violations including failure to comply with 7-Eleven’s cleanliness and food service standards and failure to maintain a minimum net worth requirement. After Sisara failed to cure its various defaults, 7-Eleven issued notices of termination in July 2024 and demanded that Sisara comply with the franchise agreement’s post-termination obligations including surrendering the store. After Sisara refused, 7-Eleven sued alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of a promissory note. 7-Eleven also moved to preliminarily enjoin Sisara from operating the store. Sisara complied with a court-issued preliminary injunction but failed to respond to 7-Eleven’s complaint. 7-Eleven then moved for entry of default judgment.

The court entered default judgment against Sisara on all counts. The court first found that Sisara breached the franchise agreement and harmed 7-Eleven by failing to pay outstanding amounts owed and violating the post-termination obligations. The court next found that Sisara’s continued operation of the store constituted trademark infringement and unfair competition because the unauthorized use of 7-Eleven’s marks would confuse customers. Finally, the court found that Sisara breached the terms of the promissory note by failing to pay the full amount due. The court awarded 7-Eleven $183,672.82 in damages and permanently enjoined Sisara from further trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unlawful possession of the store.

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Lathrop GPM

Written by:

Lathrop GPM
Contact
more
less

What do you want from legal thought leadership?

Please take our short survey – your perspective helps to shape how firms create relevant, useful content that addresses your needs:

Lathrop GPM on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide