Duracell sues Energizer over battery life claims in high-voltage feud
Duracell, owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court on June 13, stating that it has suffered irreparable harm and lost customer goodwill due to Energizer Max ads featuring Energizer's sunglasses-clad, drum-beating pink bunny.
Duracell contested claims that Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost batteries by 10 per cent, that it 'beats' Duracell, and is 'proven to last longer' in the ongoing power struggle between the two brands.
It said Energizer based those claims solely on a comparison of AA batteries under the non-profit American National Standards Institute's personal grooming products standard and does not apply to all Duracell batteries.
Story continues below advertisement
The claims 'necessarily imply the false message that Energizer Max batteries outlast all Duracell batteries' and represent 'a clear effort by Energizer to expand its market share — at Duracell's expense,' Duracell said in the high-voltage feud against its competitor.
3:59
Health Matters: Button battery poisoning
One of Energizer's recent YouTube ads shows their pink bunny battling it out with a battery that looks very similar to a Duracell product.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
'There's no competition. Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost by 10 per cent. No fluff. Just facts. Energizer Max now powered by enhanced energy,' a voiceover states.
Duracell accused Energizer of false advertising under federal and New York unfair competition laws but Energizer has yet to respond to the claim.
It is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including lost profits and an injunction requiring 'corrective advertising.'
Story continues below advertisement
This isn't the first time the companies have battled it out in a fully charged courtroom.
In 2022, Energizer won a seven-year court case against Duracell in a Canadian court after arguing that Duracell packaging couldn't claim its products lasted longer than Energizer products because of the contravened trademark law, since their slogan is famously associated with the Energizer Bunny that 'keeps going and going and going.'
The court ruled in Energizer's favour regarding the use of its trademarks in Duracell's campaign, awarding Energizer a permanent injunction and $179,000 in damages.
In 2019 and 2020, Duracell and Energizer sued each other in the Manhattan court over performance claims in ads for Duracell Optimum and Energizer Max batteries. Both lawsuits were resolved and voluntarily dismissed in December 2020.
It seems that Energizer 'keeps suing and suing and suing' as they won another lawsuit against Duracell in 2016 for using a pink bunny mascot in their ads even though Duracell began using a pink bunny in 1973.
View image in full screen
Pink rabbit and a drum, emblem of Duracell from 1973. Apic/Getty Images
Energizer began featuring a pink bunny in their ad campaigns in 1989 and Duracell retained European rights to the bunny in a deal between the two companies in 1992. But Energizer claimed its rights were violated in 2016 because packages of Duracell batteries featuring the rabbit began showing up in stores in the United States after being imported from Europe.
Story continues below advertisement
View image in full screen
The Energizer Bunny during the filming of a television commercial, July 27, 2000, in Los Angeles, Calif. Getty Images/Bob Riha, Jr.
After Energizer filed a trademark infringement and contract violation against its rival, Duracell replied and said the cases Energizer cited came from overseas distributors imported packages abroad and that they did not have the power to stop those distributors from shipping them.
In November 2017, a United States District judge threw out most of Energizer's claims in the judgement, but left the breach of the 1992 territorial contract.
As for the latest legal power struggle between the two battery giants, it seems the feud will keep on going and going with a fully charged debate.
— With files from Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Global News
29 minutes ago
- Global News
Jays' Shapiro says he wants to remain with team
See more sharing options Send this page to someone via email Share this item on Twitter Share this item via WhatsApp Share this item on Facebook TORONTO – Blue Jays president Mark Shapiro is declining comment on contract extension talks but says he wants to remain with the club and that team ownership has been 'reciprocal in that desire.' The 58-year-old Shapiro, who also serves as chief executive officer, is in the final year of his contract. Story continues below advertisement Shapiro held a media availability today at Rogers Centre before the Blue Jays opened a six-game homestand with a night game against the Chicago Cubs. Get breaking National news For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen. Sign up for breaking National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy Shapiro says he has a distinct appreciation for the city of Toronto and the opportunity to lead a team that represents the entire country. He joined the club in 2015 and signed a five-year extension in January 2021. The Blue Jays start the day with the best record in the American League at 69-50. This report by The Canadian Press was first published Aug. 12, 2025.
Global News
29 minutes ago
- Global News
Tenant advocates say Toronto's new renoviction bylaw already making ‘positive impact'
A new bylaw aimed at reducing renovictions in Toronto is already having noticeable effects, according to tenant and anti-poverty advocates, though some say it's too early to tell if it will be well-enforced. The Rental Renovation Licence Bylaw was implemented on July 31 and is designed to protect tenants from 'bad faith' evictions by their landlords under the guise of a renovation — an increasingly common tactic critics say is used by landlords to evade rent control and increase rent prices. Toronto landlords must now obtain a licence from the city before carrying out repairs or renovations that force tenants to move out, and must apply for this licence within seven days of giving a notice of ending tenancy — known as an N13 notice — to the renter. With the new bylaw in effect, some tenant advocates say they are already noticing a difference in landlords' actions. Story continues below advertisement 'We're seeing far fewer calls regarding renovictions leading up to the implementation date of July 31, so it's already had a positive impact in that sense,' said Douglas Kwan, director of advocacy and legal services at the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario. 'We're going to monitor how that goes for the rest of the year, but we anticipate that we're going to see a gradual decline with the number of N13s or renoviction calls to our organization and others in Toronto,' Kwan said. Renovictions have been on the rise in Toronto and the province for the past decade, and became a 'massive' issue in the last five or so years, said Alejandra Ruiz Vargas, president of ACORN Canada. Since 2017, there has been a nearly 50 per cent increase in the number of N13 notices filed in Toronto, according to a 2024 renoviction report by ACORN. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'I know a couple that has been renovicted three times last year,' Ruiz Vargas said, adding that the bylaw's implementation is a 'huge win' for renters. People in lower-cost rentals are commonly targeted by renovictions, and they face immense difficulties in finding places they can afford to move into after being evicted, anti-poverty advocates say. 'The huge increase in evictions has fuelled a massive increase in homelessness in Ontario,' said Jeff Schlemmer, executive director of Community Legal Clinic of York Region. Story continues below advertisement 'Thank goodness municipalities are stepping up.' New Westminster, B.C., was the first municipality to adopt a renoviction bylaw in 2019, with several other municipalities in Ontario, such as Hamilton and London, following in its footsteps. These bylaws are beneficial not only for renters but the entire housing system in a city as they help preserve affordable housing stock and are a simpler and quicker solution than putting shovels into the ground to build more affordable housing, said Kwan. 'It doesn't mean that legitimate landlords who have to renovate their units are prevented from doing so. It's really to capture situations or people who aren't even considering renovating their unit and it gives them pause,' he said. There are several requirements under Toronto's new bylaw that make it especially strong, such as the need for a landlord to have an architect or engineer confirm that the unit must be empty for the renovation work, and the requirement for the landlord to make rent gap payments if the tenant has to move elsewhere and pay higher rent, said Kwan. 'The rent gap payments ensure that a landlord mitigates the work. In other words, they don't sit on their hands,' said Kwan. Though the bylaw does not apply retroactively to tenants who have already received N13 notices, advocates say it strengthens their fight as it puts the burden on landlords to prove their renovations require vacant units. Story continues below advertisement The City of Toronto says on their website that they will use an 'education-first approach' to encourage compliance, with enforcement action to follow when appropriate. According to the bylaw, landlords could face fines of up to $100,000 if they force a tenant to leave and re-rent the unit to someone else for financial benefits, or if they fail to comply with other aspects of the new licensing requirements. 'The fines are quite high and I think they might be sufficient disincentive for these corporate landlords from acting,' Kwan said. 'I think if there is a concern, it would be uneducated, smaller landlords who perhaps unknowingly or knowingly are just trying to take the risk of renovicting their tenant. That's probably the group of landlords that should be more of a concern than the larger corporate ones.' Chiara Paravani, co-chair of York South-Weston Tenant Union, said she is aware of several landlords who are particularly 'aggressive' in pursuing renovictions. The particularly relentless actors may be willing to take a financial hit, Paravani said. 'Absorbing those fines is just part of the cost of doing business in terms of evicting people and replacing them with higher paying tenants, she said, adding that provincial fines were already in place and didn't do much to change landlords' actions. Story continues below advertisement The provincial government doubled maximum fine amounts for unlawful evictions in 2020, setting the fine rates at $50,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations. But the Ministry of Housing was 'vastly overwhelmed' with requests to enforce the violations, said Schlemmer, from the community legal clinic. 'You can make the penalty capital punishment, but if the person knows they're not gonna get caught, they're still gonna try it, which is what we have for renovictions,' Schlemmer said, stressing the importance of enforcement. 'I really hope that the City of Toronto does allocate meaningful resources to enforcement, because if they do, they could make a real dent in these unlawful evictions and significantly reduce the ongoing increase in homelessness.'
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
China announces 75.8 per cent tariffs on Canadian canola
OTTAWA — China announced a 75.8 per cent preliminary tariff on Canadian canola on Tuesday, following an anti-dumping investigation launched last year in response to Canada's tax on Chinese electric vehicles. China's Ministry of Commerce published the details of the plan on Tuesday, claiming the 'dumping' of Canadian canola into the Chinese market is hurting its domestic canola oil market. The Canola Council of Canada says 'anti-dumping investigations are initiated when a country suspects a product is being imported at a lower price than it is sold for in the domestic country in which it is produced. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'The CCC believes strongly that Canada's canola trade with China is aligned with international rules-based trade,' says a statement on the organization's website, posted before China's announcement. The council has not yet commented on Tuesday's tariff decision. China's commerce ministry also said in a separate social media post Tuesday that the two countries met four days ago to discuss trade. 'The two sides had in-depth and frank exchanges on bilateral economic and trade relations and key economic and trade concerns of both sides, and exchanged views on deepening bilateral, regional, and multilateral economic and trade co-operation,' the post read. The Prime Minister's Office deferred comment on the canola tariffs to the minister of international trade, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Canada imposed a 100 per cent tariff on Chinese electric vehicles in October 2024, a move that is to be reviewed within one year. Canada supplies China with most of its canola but China currently exports very few electric vehicles to Canada. When Canada levied tariffs on Chinese EVs last year — which are significantly less expensive than North American-made EVs, in part because of lower labour and environmental standards and state subsidies — it justified the move as protecting 'the transformation and planned investments in Canada's vehicle sector.' 'Actors like China have chosen to give themselves an unfair advantage in the global marketplace, compromising the security of our critical industries and displacing dedicated Canadian auto and metal workers. So, we're taking action to address that,' then-Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said at the time. The Chinese EV tariff also matched a similar move made by then U.S. president Joe Biden. But with EV sales slumping in Canada following the abrupt ending of the government's popular Incentive for Zero-Emission Vehicle program, which provided up to $5,000 toward the cost of a new EV, environmental groups have called on Canada to revisit the Chinese EV tariff to help drive competition in the Canadian market. 'Allowing in a limited quota of these affordable vehicles while also recognizing EU-approved vehicles … would open Canada's vehicle market to fill important market gaps, drive innovation and ultimately make our auto sector more competitive,' Clean Energy Canada said back in July. Canada has pledged to bring back some form of rebate for Canadians wanting to buy a new EV, but hasn't given a timeline for when such a measure would be implemented. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
