In the case of Energizer Brands, LLC v. Gillette Company dated July 6, 2023, involved a case of comparative advertising, and the court was tasked with determining if the challenged activity depreciated goodwill and unfairly traded on the claimant's reputation through false or misleading statements or if it constituted permissible competition without violating intellectual property rights. In the factual background, the plaintiffs, Energizer Brands, and defendants Duracell were the leading battery brands in Canada and each other's biggest competitors. They jointly supplied over two-thirds of the household consumer battery market in Canada, with Duracell holding the largest market share and Energizer having the second-largest share. After carefully reviewing the documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and submissions, the court found that the Defendants' use of the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks "ENERGIZER" and "ENERGIZER MAX" in comparative advertising on packaging labels for the listed products violated section 22 of the Trademarks Act. The court allowed the action in part based on this finding. However, the court determined that the Defendants' other comparative ads were not likely to depreciate goodwill and did not make false or misleading statements contrary to the Trademarks Act and the Competition Act. Consequently, the remainder of the action was dismissed.