Federal Court


Intellectual Property

Trademarks

Miscellaneous

Consumer seeing “bunny brand” in relation to batteries would make connection to ENERGIZER Bunny Trademark

Summary judgment to strike allegations. Defendant D Inc. and plaintiff E Inc. were leading battery brands in Canada. E Inc. brought action for damages from D Inc.’s use of terms “next leading competitive brand” and “bunny brand” on labels D Inc. attached to packages of its D Inc. batteries. D Inc. brought motion for summary judgment to strike allegations from E Inc.’s second amended statement of claim. Motion granted in part. D Inc.’s use of term “bunny brand” on packages of its batteries may offend ss. 22(1) of Trademarks Act and will not be struck. D Inc.’s use of “bunny brand” may offend ss. 7(a) and 7(d) of Trademarks Act and will not be struck. D Inc.’s use of term “next leading competitive brand” on packages of its batteries did not offend either ss. 22(1), 7(a) or 7(d) and will be struck. E Inc. did not have right to accounting for profits. Given ENERGIZER Bunny Trademarks, and fact that each was a famous mark, somewhat-hurried consumer seeing words “bunny brand” in relation to batteries would make both link with and connection to ENERGIZER Bunny Trademark. D Inc. used “bunny brand” to claim that its batteries were longer lasting than E Inc.’s batteries.

Energizer Brands, LLC v. The Gillette Company (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 6146, 2018 FC 1003, Henry S. Brown J. (F.C.).

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


The Law Society of Ontario’s recent decision to further cull the number of benchers at Convocation means that several longtime members will lose the rights either to speak or vote in the next few months. Do you agree with this move?
RESULTS ❯