Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 JULY 2023

"Electrifying" Insights: Federal Court Considers Comparative Advertising

The Federal Court's recent decision in Energizer Brands, LLC v. Gillette Company considers whether a comparative advertising campaign...

CanadaIntellectual Property

The Federal Court's recent decision in Energizer Brands, LLC v. Gillette Company1 considers whether a comparative advertising campaign that made both direct and indirect references to a competitor's brand violated the Trademarks Act or Competition Act. This decision is the latest word in a limited line of case law on the intersection between comparative advertising, trademark law and competition law. It provides valuable insights for consumer-facing businesses when considering a comparative advertising campaign.

Background

This case involved Canada's two leading consumer battery brands: Duracell and Energizer. Duracell attached stickers to its battery packaging that claimed its batteries lasted longer than Energizer's. Some of these stickers displayed Energizer's registered trademarks ENERGIZER and ENERGIZER MAX:

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from