24
Nov/02

Eveready Bunny v. Joe Arizona


Defendant Coalition for Arizona opposed the expansion of tribal gambling casinos in Arizona thorugh a “Joe Arizona” advertising campaign.”  It used Plaintiff’s ENERGIZER BUNNY in advertising without authorization.  It’s common to allege both infringement and dilution as alternative pleadings, however strict text book definitions of the two torts suggest that they aren’t likely to simultaneously occur, because the public is either confused as to origin or it isn’t.  However,  in  this complaint,  plaintiff alleges instances of actual confusion as to Eveready’s endorsement of the anti-casino campaign, while a traditional dilution claim seems appropriate as well.  Could be both infringing and diluting.

Comments are closed.