EEVblog #751 - How To Debunk A Product (The Batteriser)

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Hi,

I have to record this gem here from the Batteriser Facebook page:




Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[WN1X]

That's classic

[Galenbo]

Will we ever hear from Batteriser again?

But that's why everyone keeps watching this thread, because it's the best engineering soap opera in town!

It's the soap that learnt me most of all soaps.

Basically it's about nothing, there's nothing new or spectacular.
But their claims and insults provoked so much aspects of debunk, that numerous interesting details popped up.

The biggest contribution of this community, was making them make new claims, new "proof".

[Fungus]

I have to record this gem here from the Batteriser Face

That was me. 

[McBryce]

Breaking News: Facebook shares plummet after it's discovered that 75% of all Facebook accounts belong to one guy who goes by the name of Fungus

McBryce.

[PeterL]

Hi,

I have to record this gem here from the Batteriser Facebook page:




Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

On February 8th a new year will start in China, a Monkey-year! Now let's hope that means good luck for anything Monkey related..

[SL4P]

But that's why everyone keeps watching this thread, because it's the best engineering soap opera in town!

Powered by batteriser! 

Aww crap - I was hoping it would be over & exposed soon... but using Batteriser it may last up to 800% longer !

[g.lewarne]

Some more indegogo rage

[Godzil]

But that's why everyone keeps watching this thread, because it's the best engineering soap opera in town!

Powered by batteriser! 

800% more story
800% more thrilling
800% more fun
800% more songs
800% more opera!

(but 800% less product, but who care? )

[rich]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

[HighVoltage]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

Now everyone has their email address:
xxxxx@batteroo.com, xxxxx@gmail.com

This really is a soap opera!

[madires]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

Quite meritless. It's basically a "I don't agree" without any explanations or reasons.

[Fungus]

Now everyone has their email address:
xxxx@batteroo.com, xxxx@gmail.com

Did you just doxx them...?

[Delta]

Now everyone has their email address:
xxxx@batteroo.com, xxxx@gmail.com

Did you just doxx them...?

I don't think you can Doc Drop someone involved with patents.  By definition, if you are dealing with patents then you are going public.

Patents aren't just for showing off to investors...

[timb]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

Now everyone has their email address:
xxxxxx@batteroo.com, xxxxxxx@gmail.com

This really is a soap opera!

Now everyone has their email address:
xxxx@batteroo.com, xxxx@gmail.com

Did you just doxx them...?

It's pubic record and available with a simple Google search. You don't have to be an Internet detective to find it.

[g.lewarne]

An Update!  (kinda, well no, not really)

[EEVblog]

It's pubic record and available with a simple Google search. You don't have to be an Internet detective to find it.

It might be, but people's contact details are not to be posted here unless they do it themselves or ok it.

[Fungus]

An Update!  (kinda, well no, not really)

Oooh, that's too good to pass up! Awkward question has been (politely) posted.

[EEVblog]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

So what does this mean? They are fighting it? Or is it just a necessary step before they try and make a deal?

[EEVblog]

An Update!  (kinda, well no, not really)

That's more blunt than their usual responses.

[g.lewarne]

An Update!  (kinda, well no, not really)

Oooh, that's too good to pass up! Awkward question has been (politely) posted.

The change in direction from "soon" and "nearly there" type responses to what amounts to "hmmph, dunno" is interesting indeed

[Jay_Diddy_B]

Looks like they just filed the response to the Energiser trademark issue yesterday. Not had chance to read them yet but they are here:
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-4.pdf

So what does this mean? They are fighting it? Or is it just a necessary step before they try and make a deal?

I believe that the document is Batteroo's response to this document, the Notice of Opposition to Batteroo being granted the trademark "Batteriser and Batterise:

http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/ttabvue-91225355-OPP-1.pdf

It looks like its a point by point rebuttal to the challenges from page 27 onwards.

Example:

Applicant admits that opposer has used, promoted, and advertised its goods in
commerce for many years. Applicant denies each and every other allegation
contained in paragraph 7.



Paragraph 7:

7. No issue of priority exists with respect to first use of Opposer’s Marks and the
Applied-For Marks. Opposer has used, promoted and advertised its goods and services under
Opposer’s Marks in commerce for 60 years, since at least as early as 1955, while Applicant
alleges only an intent to use the BATTERISER and BATTERISE marks in commerce. Thus,
Opposer has priority over Applicant with respect to the Applied-For Marks.


It looks like they are trying to hold onto the Batteriser Trademark.

Regards,

Jay_Diddy_B

[Smokey]

It's pubic record and available with a simple Google search. You don't have to be an Internet detective to find it.

It might be, but people's contact details are not to be posted here unless they do it themselves or ok it.

I get where you are coming from with this, but it came from a public records document that they released so they by default gave permission.  If it was a leaked confidential document that would be different but it's not. 

[EEVblog]

It looks like they are trying to hold onto the Batteriser Trademark.

In that case they are going to:
a) be tied up for years in court
b) Waste every last cent they have.
c) Lose (because, you know, it's Energiser and their army of crack Trademark attorney's and 60 years of history using the name vs, umm, Mr Parvin, apparently not even a Trademark attorney, and good buddy of the company probably doing it at mates rates)

And if their attorney Mr Parvin is in any way competent he would advise his client not to start shipping product with the name Batteriser on it, because that will just magnify the damages.
Batteroo are screwed.
It's obvious to anyone that Batteroo chose the name Batteriser as a play on the Energizer name. Who didn't at least momentarily associate the two when they first heard it? Energizer will have no problem proving that.

I suspect they are just kicking the can down the road.

[EEVblog]

I get where you are coming from with this, but it came from a public records document that they released so they by default gave permission. 

Then point to the public document, don't copy and paste contact details here.
And BTW, it's not even Batteroo's contact details, it's their attorney.