The news that Duracell last week returned to process the Energizer Due to an aggressive comparative advertising, it is another chapter in the battery war that the two companies have waged over decades. The processes of both parties normally involve advertisements about the life of batteries, but have also settled in copyright about the well -known image of Rabbit Pink, adopted by both companies.
The litigation this time is linked to a national campaign with Rabbit Rosa Energizer Bunny in a kind of old-west duel against an unidentified pile, but clearly alluding to the competitor. After the rabbit defeats the opponent, the speaker states: “No winding, only facts.”
Energizer has reinforced the message that its Max batteries last 10% more than Warren Buffett’s Duracell. According to the complaint filed on June 13 at a federal court in Manhattan, Duracell claims strange to “irreparable damage to reputation” because of the announcements. The claim is that the alleged higher performance refers to only one selective test. Or not only the interruption of advertising, but also compensation for alleged losses.
Continues after advertising
The companies had already judicialized the issue five years ago, after comparisons made on the batteries Duracell Optimum and Energizer Max. In December 2020, the processes were filed with the parties agreeing only to stating that each pile was the strongest for different purposes.
There was a new clash in 2022, this time in a court in Canada, where Energizer won a seven -year lawsuit against Duracell with the argument that the competitor’s packaging could not mention his name because it violated the law of registered brands. Duracell was released to say on packaging that it was superior to the “rabbit brand” or “the next leading competitive brand”.
Whose rabbit is?
But it was exactly about the Figure of Rabbit Pink that the noisiest dispute happened. Duracell’s Pink Bunny first appeared in 1973, with a concept of a pile -powered cuddly animal that was still touching its drum after the competitor was out of power.
Continues after advertising
But Duracell left its trademark expire in 1988 and Energizer took the opportunity to debut its own 1989 version of a more “cool” Pink Bunny and even wearing a pair of sunglasses.
The success of the competitor’s new plush pet was so great that Duracell went to court in 1992 for allegation of breach of intellectual law about the character Pink Bunny. Even with the recognition of Duracell’s original idea, Energizer was allowed to keep its own rabbit after the allegation of strong public recognition and commercial strategy around it.
There was a confidential extrajudicial agreement under which Energizer would assume exclusive trademark rights in the United States and Canada, while Duracell would have rights in the rest of the world. In 2016, it was Energizer who complained in the courts that Duracell was using his character in the American market.
