This link may have been posted previously, but I see in the fine detail, that a Trade Mark opposition was lodged & accepted two weeks ago (15 Dec 2015)
https://trademarks.justia.com/865/71/batteriser-86571275.html
EDIT: Added:
Big Battery are in the court. Wait for sparks to fly.
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2oy0gcdxs/uspto-trademark-trial-and-appeal-board/energizer-brands-llc-v-batteroo-inc/
Interestingly, they seem to be going after the risk of consumer confusion between ENERGIZER anbd BATTERISER...
I think you discovered the actual natural disaster that has impacted Batteroo. All their tooling and branded inventory - if any exists - is now scrap. They have no money to fight this unless someone had the foresight to buy legal insurance.
Energizer takes a page from Dave and goes after their credibility. From the Notice of Opposition:
The Applied-For Marks Are Deceptive Or Alternatively Deceptively Mis-Descriptive.
12. The Applied-For Mark are deceptive because they bestow upon the product
identified by Applied-For Marks an appearance of greater quality or salability than it has in fact.
14. Upon information and belief, the product identified by Applied-For Marks,
however, does not actually raise or increase the stored energy of the battery. Instead, as
indicated in Applicant’s recitation of goods, the identified product merely provides access to
existing stored energy found within the battery, i.e., “sleeve to be used with disposable batteries to extract stored energy and extend battery life.” (Emphasis added).
15. This deception is material because it relates to a character, quality or function of
the identified product and because prospective purchasers are likely to believe that the deception actually describes the product.
So essentially they are saying that the device is BS and Batteroo implies that the Energizer batteries are somewhat faulty.
their entire rebuttal to date is essentially that Dave is too stupid because he isn't a PhD and thus can't understand their laws of physics defying breakthrough.
So if "Big Battery" was after them "Big Battery" should already have destroyed Sanyo and the likes with low self-discharge NiMH batteries.
Interestingly, they seem to be going after the risk of consumer confusion between ENERGIZER anbd BATTERISER...
Another deluded guy, cannot realise there is a difference between voltage and power. For the price of batteriser you can buy a lot of decent rechargeable cells. Saying even if it does not work it is fine. Why does he not go and throw money in the dumpster every day, it is still possible a dumpster diver might get it before it goes to landfill.
The Batteroo guys, self-deluded smartest guys on the planet, thought they could rub off some Energizer brand recognition with their clever name.
Since they're obviously monitoring this forum...
Merry Christmas Batteroo!
I do wonder if Energizer had their engineers investigate whether or not their was any proof in Batterisers claims? I recon they did, and the result of course would be that the claims are BS, but they decided to go ahead anyway and trademark sue because Battrisers marketing just pissed them off
2. They will use it in more bullshit publicity to say that they were put out of business by Big Battery because their product posed a threat.
And given that the Ingiegogo backers are technically financial backers of the company, this (and likely Patent failure) is news that Batteroo need to share with them.
...But see our new campaign: Magic battery snake oil! Rub your battery with it and it will extend its life by 800%!"
They could always settle quickly with Energizer and change the product name fairly cheaply (We never saw large crates of freshly minted sleeves).
As a consumer I do not mix Coca-Cola to Pepsi cola. And I do not have any trouble accidentally mixing Energizer to Batteriser either.
And given that the Ingiegogo backers are technically financial backers of the company, this (and likely Patent failure) is news that Batteroo need to share with them.Next update: "We hired a law firm to defend against big battery corp and lost. One condition was not to sell the Batteriser and because of the legal fees we went bankrupt before we could change the name. Sorry folks, it's all the fault of the big players and their employee Dave Jones, they don't want us to sell our perfect product.
They could always settle quickly with Energizer and change the product name fairly cheaply
As a consumer I do not mix Coca-Cola to Pepsi cola. And I do not have any trouble accidentally mixing Energizer to Batteriser either.
In the trademark/patent lawsuit world, it doesn't matter. The one with the deepest pockets usually wins by attrition.