In a battle of the batteries, Duracell has sued Energizer, accusing its rival of crossing the positive line and misleading consumers in a nationwide TV and online ad campaign about whose batteries last longer.
Duracell, owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, filed a complaint in Manhattan federal court on June 13, stating that it has suffered irreparable harm and lost customer goodwill due to Energizer Max ads featuring Energizer’s sunglasses-clad, drum-beating pink bunny.
Duracell contested claims that Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost batteries by 10 per cent, that it “beats” Duracell, and is “proven to last longer” in the ongoing power struggle between the two brands.
It said Energizer based those claims solely on a comparison of AA batteries under the non-profit American National Standards Institute’s personal grooming products standard and does not apply to all Duracell batteries.
The claims “necessarily imply the false message that Energizer Max batteries outlast all Duracell batteries” and represent “a clear effort by Energizer to expand its market share — at Duracell’s expense,” Duracell said in the high-voltage feud against its competitor.
One of Energizer’s recent YouTube ads shows their pink bunny battling it out with a battery that looks very similar to a Duracell product.
Get daily National news
Get the day’s top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day.
“There’s no competition. Energizer Max outlasts Duracell Power Boost by 10 per cent. No fluff. Just facts. Energizer Max now powered by enhanced energy,” a voiceover states.
Duracell accused Energizer of false advertising under federal and New York unfair competition laws but Energizer has yet to respond to the claim.
It is seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, including lost profits and an injunction requiring “corrective advertising.”
This isn’t the first time the companies have battled it out in a fully charged courtroom.
In 2022, Energizer won a seven-year court case against Duracell in a Canadian court after arguing that Duracell packaging couldn’t claim its products lasted longer than Energizer products because of the contravened trademark law, since their slogan is famously associated with the Energizer Bunny that “keeps going and going and going.”
The court ruled in Energizer’s favour regarding the use of its trademarks in Duracell’s campaign, awarding Energizer a permanent injunction and $179,000 in damages.
In 2019 and 2020, Duracell and Energizer sued each other in the Manhattan court over performance claims in ads for Duracell Optimum and Energizer Max batteries. Both lawsuits were resolved and voluntarily dismissed in December 2020.
It seems that Energizer “keeps suing and suing and suing” as they won another lawsuit against Duracell in 2016 for using a pink bunny mascot in their ads even though Duracell began using a pink bunny in 1973.
Pink rabbit and a drum, emblem of Duracell from 1973.
Apic/Getty Images
Energizer began featuring a pink bunny in their ad campaigns in 1989 and Duracell retained European rights to the bunny in a deal between the two companies in 1992. But Energizer claimed its rights were violated in 2016 because packages of Duracell batteries featuring the rabbit began showing up in stores in the United States after being imported from Europe.
The Energizer Bunny during the filming of a television commercial, July 27, 2000, in Los Angeles, Calif.
Getty Images/Bob Riha, Jr.
After Energizer filed a trademark infringement and contract violation against its rival, Duracell replied and said the cases Energizer cited came from overseas distributors imported packages abroad and that they did not have the power to stop those distributors from shipping them.
In November 2017, a United States District judge threw out most of Energizer’s claims in the judgement, but left the breach of the 1992 territorial contract.
As for the latest legal power struggle between the two battery giants, it seems the feud will keep on going and going with a fully charged debate.
— With files from Reuters
© 2025 Global News, a division of Corus Entertainment Inc.