Energizer Brands, LLC v. The Gillette Company, 2018 FC 1003
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
This is a motion for summary judgment brought by the Defendants [Duracell] to strike certain allegations from the Plaintiffs’ [Energizer’s] Second Amended Statement of Claim. ... For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part. In my respectful view, Duracell’s use of the term “the bunny brand” on packages of Duracell’s batteries may offend subsection 22(1) of the Trade-marks Act as construed in accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Veuve Clicquot; they will not be struck. Likewise, use of “the bunny brand” may offend subsections 7(a) and 7(d) of the Trade-marks Act, and will not be struck. However, I find Duracell’s use of the term “the next leading competitive brand” on packages of Duracell’s batteries does not offend either subsection 22(1) or subsections 7(a) and 7(d). Pleadings referring to “the next leading competitive brand” in the context of subsection 22(1) and subsections 7(a) and 7(d) will be struck from Energizer’s claim. In my respectful view, Energizer does not have the right to an accounting for profits under subsection 52(1) of the Competition Act. Energizer’s claim in that respect will be struck.
Decision relates to:
- T-1591-15 - ENERGIZER BRANDS, LLC v. THE GILLETTE COMPANY ET AL
- A-357-18 - which is an appeal from this decision