chisees to provide tax preparation services to customers under the H&R Block service mark. June McCart was granted a Block franchise at 900 Main Street, Rochester, New York. For seven years, her husband, Robert, was involved in the operation of a Block franchise in Rensselaer, New York. After that, he assisted June in the operation of her Block franchise. All the McCarts’ income during the time in question came from the Block franchises. The Block franchise agreement that June signed contained a provision whereby she agreed not to compete (1) in the business of tax preparation (2) within 250 miles of the franchise (3) for a period of two years after the termination of the franchise. Robert did not sign the Rochester franchise agreement. Two years later, June wrote a letter to Block, giving notice that she was terminating the franchise. Shortly thereafter, the McCarts sent a letter to people who had been clients of the Rochester Block office, informing them that June was leaving Block and that Robert was opening a tax preparation service in which June would assist him. Block granted a new franchise in Rochester to another franchisee. It sued the McCarts to enforce the covenant not to compete against them. Who wins? McCart v. H&R Block, Inc., 470 N.E.2d 756, Web 1984 Ind. ApLexis 3039 (Court of Appeals of Indiana)