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

[EEVblog]

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.

The Batteriser soap opera never fails to disappoint! 
Yeah, Batteroo and their backers are no match for Energiser. It's looking very grim. Almost certain to lose their patent, and now this Trademark fight.

[miguelvp]

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.

That makes more sense than going after the name, but it was too long to read, nice find.

So essentially they are saying that the device is BS and Batteroo implies that the Energizer batteries are somewhat faulty.

Weird, they  usually used Duracells on their demos, but they also did use Enegizers:



noob mistake from Batteroo, as someone mentioned before, they should have not used name brands that where easily recognizable.

[SL4P]

Since they're obviously monitoring this forum...

Merry Christmas Batteroo!

[photon]

So essentially they are saying that the device is BS and Batteroo implies that the Energizer batteries are somewhat faulty.

Energizer does not say that Batteriser is BS. They say the name "Batteriser" is deceptive in that it implies something it does not deliver.

Energizer does not say that Batteroo implies that the Energizer's batteries are faulty. They say that the name "Batteriser" implies that it adds something to an Energizer battery which in fact it does not.

The Batteroo guys, self-deluded smartest guys on the planet, thought they could rub off some Energizer brand recognition with their clever name.

[Kjelt]

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.

Difference between theoretical science and applied science:

PhD: theoretical battery operated device will stop operating at 1,3V
Dave: such devices are no longer made in this world, all modern devices run to 1,0V and already have a dc-dc converter built in.

That is why in all companies PhD's/sysarchs etc. should work together with the applied science people to keep them from floating away from earth 

[meeder]

If it were "Big Battery" going after them, why do we have rechargeable batteries?
I am using Eneloop NiMH's in loads of devices and since they have a extreme low self discharge you can easily use them in low power devices like clocks.
So if "Big Battery" was after them "Big Battery" should already have destroyed Sanyo and the likes with low self-discharge NiMH batteries.

[Wytnucls]

Choosing a name like Batteriser for their product was looking for trouble.
In case Energizer wins the court case, may I suggest a few alternatives:
Battevac, Battecell, Batteloop, Batteready, Battevac, Battony, Battesonic and my favorite, Batterlips.

[FrankBuss]

So if "Big Battery" was after them "Big Battery" should already have destroyed Sanyo and the likes with low self-discharge NiMH batteries.

First, Sanyo is a company which was bought by Panasonic for $4.5 billion. Suing them for something would be very expensive compared to a company which is probably only worth a few million dollars max. But the main point is that Batteriser claims they can fix something that is wrong with the batteries, which is deceptive and could damage the reputation of Big Battery corp, because you can see the battery brand. Battery companies just list the features of their battery, and usually you don't see the brand of the other battery, if they do comparative tests.

I hope Big Battery corp wins the case and then less people buys it, because the Batteriser will cause more problems for customers than it will help them for the 0.1% applications where it is useful. As mentioned before in this thread by others, the Apple keyboard example is very good, because the Mac shows always 100% with the Batteriser, until it suddenly dies. Without the Batteriser you would see early when you have to plan to buy new batteries. When someone gets the Batteriser, would be fun to compare the keyboard with and without it. I bet it works longer without Batteriser, because usually the efficiency of buck converters is not good for low output currents, as you would expect from a keyboard. And even if you put in the Batteriser only after it shows low %, probably it won't last longer. If it would, they would have posted numbers.

[EEVblog]

Interestingly, they seem to be going after the risk of consumer confusion between ENERGIZER anbd BATTERISER...

Perhaps now we know why Batteriser is spelled with a non-american S.

[cavac]

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.

I do some rough calculation on the amount of money you can save by NOT buying batteriser and non-rechargable batteries on my blog: https://cavac.at/guest/blog/view/32.

Basically, you can save somewhere between 600 to 18000 Euros (by reusing your initial investment), compared to the initial investment of just buying enough non-rechargable battery capacity to break even with the batteriser (compared to non-rechargable non-batteriser use)...

[EEVblog]

The Batteroo guys, self-deluded smartest guys on the planet, thought they could rub off some Energizer brand recognition with their clever name.

Like it or not, Energizer probably have a reasonable case. And a "reasonable case" in the Trademark worlds means at least a million dollars for Batteroo to defend against it and "win".
Energizer won't back down, their pockets are so big so this trademark suit is chump change, so I think Batteroo are pretty much screwed. They will have to drop the name, or go bankrupt.
That means:
a) all the sleeves they made (which have been made according to them, just waiting on the chip?) will have to be re-done.
b) they will likely have to pay initial legal costs for Energizer?
c) The project will now be even more delayed. Only a fool would go ahead and ship product with this lawsuit hanging over their head, because that would add damages based on units shipped.

Whatever the case, it unfortunately adds massive and "indisputable" proof to back up their absurd claim that "big battery" is trying to shut them down to protect profits because they are scared of their "amazing technology" 
And also their libelous claim that I'm paid by "big battery" 

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 

[Muttley Snickers]

Since they're obviously monitoring this forum...

Merry Christmas Batteroo!

Christmas is the time for giving, so what gives ?, not their product that's for sure.

I sincerely hope that Big Battery does not pursue any legal proceedings for the following reasons :

1. We will most likely never see the product (I suspect this was on the cards either way).
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.
3. They will release it under a different name and we will have to go through all of this again (or simply change the thread title, all else stays the same).
4. There is bugger all on television and this is both informative and entertaining.

[cavac]

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 

I'm pretty sure they did check first. Even if the current court battle is about the trademark, it will also involve both companies' marketing campaigns. The judge will look if the consumer is likely to get confused about the two products.

For example, if Chiquita starts to make pies, the judge would (most likely) assume that their product is so different from the banana pi single board computer that the consumer is unlikely to confuse the two products.

So it might "come up by accident" in court that some of the marketing claims made by Batteroo are false, which might lead to slander charges being added to the case.

[EEVblog]

So did anyone predict this turn of events?

[EEVblog]

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.

I now wonder if the VC's who were sold on the marketing spin, might now buy into a "see, the technology is so amazing it will revolutionise the world, fund this trademark defense and let's crush big battery" line?
It all now likely rests on the VC's. They either fund the defense, or they pull the plug. I doubt the brothers would fund this out of their own pocket, they aren't that silly.
Odds would have to be that with the likely patent failure, and now this huge defense expense against a massive company, the VC's will fold and run.

Odds of any of us actually getting a Batteriser now are an order of magnitude less than what they were last week.
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.

[SL4P]

In the trademark opposition document -
See the attached paragraph, and the immediate ~10 following paras...

...and the second let's Batteroo go on holidays for a while before they file no contest, and sink the VC funds.

[jancumps]

Energizer isn't free of the same dillution, it seems:

[FrankBuss]

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. But see our new campaign: Magic battery snake oil! Rub your battery with it and it will extend its life by 800%!"

[SL4P]

...But see our new campaign: Magic battery snake oil! Rub your battery with it and it will extend its life by 800%!"

Now if only they could do that for male appendages... oh wait, they have been offering that for years in my email and banner ads!

[Wytnucls]

They could always settle quickly with Energizer and change the product name fairly cheaply (We never saw large crates of freshly minted sleeves). I predicted patent litigation, but had the 'in house' DC to DC converter in mind at the time, not the sleeve. I still don't believe they created their own IC and don't buy the 500mA output either, never mind anything higher.
The whole enterprise is in shambles and I wouldn't be surprised if SKTA is about to pull the plug on them. The serial entrepreneurs will leave town on a rail, tarred and feathered. 

[Kalvin]

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.

[EEVblog]

They could always settle quickly with Energizer and change the product name fairly cheaply (We never saw large crates of freshly minted sleeves).

That is their only out, if Energizer intend to let them settle and still sell under another name.
But the wheels have already fallen off the billy cart.

[EEVblog]

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.

[Brumby]

I found myself nodding as I read this:

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

This would be the logical thing to do - presuming they had a real product.

[PeterL]

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.

Just look at the time line for this case. This whole procedure will take 16 months. No matter who wins this one, Batteroo already lost this one. IMHO a 16 months wait is something they just cannot afford at the moment.