In an interesting case involving competing business printers, a Minnesota district court issued a temporary injunction against certain employees who had left one firm and went with another. Their employment contract included a provision that prohibited them from "directly or indirectly call[ing] upon, solicit[ing] or provid[ing] any service or product to any existing or potential Merrill client serviced by, assigned to, or solicited by you working alone or in conjunction with another Merrill employee. These restrictions apply only when the client is solicited to purchase a service or product that competes with a service or product of Merrill. The defendants argued that this provision did not restrict them from providing invitations to events or making gifts to clients that involved no direct solicitation. In this regard, the Court suggested that the purpose of the gift or event was to ultimately solicit business, so it was prohibited. However, the Court found the word "client was ambiguous and interpreted it against the party that drafted the provision and was trying to enforce the non-compete. The injunction was made to apply only to the company that was a client and not previous employees who might have gone to work for another company. Merrill v. R.R. Donnelley and Sons (D.C. Minn. 2008).