The franchisee and franchisor are in a more equitable bargaining situation than the typical employer-employee relationship. More importantly, New Jersey courts have emphasized that the primary characteristic of a franchise is the license given to the franchisee to trade upon and exploit the franchisor’s good will. Liberty Sales Assoc., Inc. v. Dow Corning Corp., 816 F.Supp. 1004, 1010 (D.N.J.1993) (“What distinguishes a franchise from an ordinary distributorship is that the goodwill inherent in the name and mark attaches to the entire business of the seller, not just to the goods themselves.”); Neptune T.V. & Appliance Serv., Inc. v. Litton Sys., Inc., 190 N.J.Super. 153, 160-61, 462 A.2d 595 (App.Div.1983); cf. Piercing Pagoda, Inc. v. Hoffner, 465 Pa. 500, 351 A.2d 207, 211 (1976) (<HOLDING>); see generally Annotation, supra (collecting
holding that restrictive covenants in franchise agreements are enforceable to protect the basic product which the franchisor has to sell namely the franchise itself   holding that the restrictive covenants at issue are unenforceable as a matter of public policy holding that a restrictive covenant will be upheld where a franchisor has a protectable interest in the sale of his franchise holding that franchisor has an interest in the goodwill its franchise has created holding that state courts may not enforce racially restrictive covenants