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

Federal court | Intellectual Property | Trademarks | Miscellaneous

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.).

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Human Right Commission backs changes to Equipment and Use of Force Regulation, use of force report

Queen’s Law, International Inter-Tribal Trade and Investment Organization form strategic alliance

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds summary dismissal of domestic assault claim

Lawyers may ask courts to invalidate their retainer agreements: Ontario Court of Appeal

Individual appellant, not his company, should pay legal fees under retainer agreement: Ont. CA

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds summary dismissal of malicious prosecution lawsuit

Most Read Articles

Lawyers may ask courts to invalidate their retainer agreements: Ontario Court of Appeal

Buyer who failed to complete property purchase not entitled to return of deposit: Ontario court

Ontario Court of Appeal upholds summary dismissal of malicious prosecution lawsuit

Individual appellant, not his company, should pay legal fees under retainer agreement: Ont. CA