JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Fetch! Pet Care, Inc. (“Fetch!”), a nationwide franchisor of pet-care services, alleges that several of its franchisees orchestrated a coordinated effort to exit their franchise agreements due to their discontent with paying royalties. In Fetch!’s view, these franchisees breached their agreements when they attempted to abscond and steal Fetch!’s branding, clients, intellectual property, and trade secrets with the intent to operate their own competing businesses. On the other hand, the franchisees claim that nearly all of those operating under Fetch!’s “2.0” model have failed, as evidenced by their high attrition rate due to the model’s exorbitant royalty fees, Fetch!’s failure to deliver the results it advertised, and Fetch!’s deficient but expensive corporate support. And the few “1.0” model franchisees in this action claim they did not intend to leave but were forced to after being unexpectedly shut out of Fetch!’s system, leaving them unable to service their clients. Their only option for survival, they say, was to open their own businesses.

In response, Fetch! promptly filed a complaint along with a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary injunction against thirty-one former franchisees. Fetch! urged the district court to enjoin them from launching or continuing to operate their competing businesses, misappropriating its trade secrets, infringing its trademarks, and conspiring to interfere with its business relationships. After additional briefing and a two-day evidentiary hearing, the district court denied in part and granted in part Fetch!’s motion for injunctive relief. Specifically, the court reiterated what its TRO had ordered: that defendants-appellees stop using Fetch!’s trademarks and cease further communication with any existing Fetch! franchisee.

Ultimately, the district court determined that although the case presented a close call in several respects, Fetch! failed to carry its burden of showing that these circumstances clearly demanded a preliminary injunction. In fact, the court noted that granting an injunction in full could fatally compromise the parties’ ongoing arbitration. The court further concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Fetch exhibited “unclean hands” in the way it sold its franchises. Because we review the district court’s application of the unclean hands doctrine for abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence in the record supports the court’s conclusion, we affirm.