TVIS Limited v Howserv Services Limited: PETSURE found too close to VETSURE

What happened

TVIS, which trades as Vetsure, owns the registered trademark VETSURE for pet cover. It sued Howserv, which trades as Petsure, for trademark infringement and passing off, a claim that a business is misrepresenting itself so as to damage another's goodwill. The High Court judge found the two names looked and sounded similar but meant different things conceptually, decided VETSURE wasn't a particularly strong mark, and concluded there was no real likelihood of confusion, even though there was some documentary evidence of customers mixing the two brands up. TVIS appealed.

What did the court decide in TVIS v Howserv Services?

The Court of Appeal allowed TVIS's appeal. It found the trial judge had made several errors: wrongly treating VETSURE and PETSURE as conceptually different when both suggest cover for vet costs relating to pets, wrongly downplaying VETSURE as merely descriptive rather than an invented word with some built in distinctiveness plus a degree of distinctiveness gained through use, and wrongly writing off multiple documented instances of real customer confusion as simple admin mistakes. Looking at the evidence as a whole, the court found a likelihood of confusion did exist, and upheld TVIS's claims under sections 5(2) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 and for passing off.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that real evidence of customers mixing up two brands carries real weight, and a court won't necessarily accept it being explained away as a simple admin error.
• If your name and a competitor's name sound and look alike, don't assume a different underlying meaning will protect you, not if the gap in meaning isn't obvious and immediate.
• Even a mark built from everyday words, like VETSURE combining 'vet' and 'sure', can get some protection if it's an invented combination and has built up a reputation in the market.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The Supreme Court has granted permission for Howserv to bring a further appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision, with the case listed under a 2025 case reference.Source: UK Supreme Court, March 2025
• The Supreme Court noted that both TVIS and Howserv are acknowledged to be relatively small providers within the pet cover sector.Source: UK Supreme Court, March 2025

What others said about it

• Hogarth Chambers notes this started as a High Court trademark infringement action brought by one pet insurer, Vetsure, against a rival using the Petsure name.Source: Hogarthchambers, October 2024
• LexisNexis observes that while the Court of Appeal seldom disturbs a trial judge's evaluative findings, it was prepared to do so here once it identified clear errors of principle.Source: LexisNexis
• Bristows frames this as the second round in the VETSURE v PETSURE dispute, pointing to how the appellate court re-examined the judge's treatment of actual confusion evidence.Source: Bristows, December 2024