Energizer sues Warren Buffett's Duracell over 'Optimum' battery claims

This post was originally published on this site
https://i-invdn-com.akamaized.net/news/LYNXNPEBAG0BO_M.jpg
© Reuters. Energizer sues Warren Buffett's Duracell over 'Optimum' battery claims© Reuters. Energizer sues Warren Buffett’s Duracell over ‘Optimum’ battery claims

By Jonathan Stempel

NEW YORK (Reuters) – The maker of Energizer batteries sued the maker of Duracell batteries on Monday, accusing Duracell of duping consumers by implying that its new “Optimum” AA and AAA batteries are more powerful and last longer than all rival batteries.

Energizer Holdings Inc (N:) said Duracell, a unit of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc (N:), engaged in false advertising for Optimum with packaging that said its batteries offer “extra life” and “extra power,” and TV commercials that said: “Both is better than not both.”

It is only in the “mice-type” fine print, according to Energizer, that battery buyers learn that Optimum may outperform Duracell’s own Coppertop batteries, not rival batteries, and only in some devices.

“These paltry and sporadic benefits are not the stuff great ads are made of and, indeed, barely seem worth touting at all,” Energizer said in its complaint in Manhattan federal court.

The St. Louis-based company is seeking damages for false advertising under New York law and the federal Lanham Act, and a halt to any improper advertising.

Duracell did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Berkshire bought Duracell, which has offices in Chicago and Bethel, Connecticut, from Procter & Gamble Co (N:) in February 2016. It was not named specifically as a defendant.

The lawsuit is not the first Duracell has faced over Optimum, which were launched in July.

In August, New Jersey vaping company What A Smoke LLC accused Duracell of infringing its trademark rights in “Optimum” with respect to batteries, battery chargers, liquids and other products associated with electronic cigarettes. That lawsuit was filed in the federal court in Newark, New Jersey.

The case is Energizer Brands LLC v Duracell U.S. Operations LLC, U.S. District Court, Southern (NYSE:) District of New York, No. 19-09061.

Disclaimer: Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. All CFDs (stocks, indexes, futures) and Forex prices are not provided by exchanges but rather by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual market price, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Therefore Fusion Media doesn`t bear any responsibility for any trading losses you might incur as a result of using this data.

Fusion Media or anyone involved with Fusion Media will not accept any liability for loss or damage as a result of reliance on the information including data, quotes, charts and buy/sell signals contained within this website. Please be fully informed regarding the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, it is one of the riskiest investment forms possible.