16 Mar 2026
Confusion claims over a major veterinary firm’s new branding have refocused attention on a long-standing legal dispute.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: sata_production / Adobe Stock
Independent practices claim they have been left in limbo by a major veterinary care provider, a year after their legal dispute over pet health club schemes became public.
Representatives of the We Are Spartacus group have spoken out after legal concerns were raised about new branding unveiled by the company at the centre of the row.
IVC Evidensia officials have indicated they regard the initial case as broadly settled and say they have “no current plans” to approach any other businesses.
But the Spartacus group said there had been no communication from the company since its deadline for responses passed at the end of last year.
Natalie Morris-Webb, whose Malthouse Vets practice in Shropshire was among those affected by the case, said “the uncertainty is still there”.
She added: “It’s unacceptable that IVC has not yet achieved a commercial settlement or revealed whether they have given the industry a reprieve and no longer plan to take legal action.”
The dispute first came to public prominence in March last year when the Spartacus campaign accused IVC of threatening the future of independent practice by pursuing legal redress in relation to various Pet Health Club trademarks that it owns.
Although the campaign has argued that many practices were using the words long before any copyright claims were registered, IVC sources suggested many had updated their services’ branding.
A company spokesperson later added: “We have no current plans to approach anyone we haven’t previously contacted on this matter, but of course, we reserve the rights available to the company, as trademark holder, to protect our trademarks and customers in the future, as in any sector.”
However, the issue has been given fresh momentum after the company unveiled a new “inspiring vet care” branding for its UK practices last month, for which trademark applications have been registered with the Intellectual Property Office.
Critics claim it risks creating public confusion between IVC and the RCVS because of the existing “Inspiring confidence in veterinary care” slogan which the latter launched last autumn.
They believe the concern is particularly acute because of the concern with transparency highlighted through the ongoing Competition and Markets Authority investigation, whose final remedy proposals are expected to be published soon.
But IVC insisted it was “not aware of any issues or confusion” related to the RCVS slogan.
The college has also refused to be drawn on whether it might take action, saying only that it had become aware of the IVC branding last month and were “pleased to have received positive feedback” about its own.
But the Spartacus campaign said it would “welcome” the college to its ranks, noting that many of its existing supporters were not directly affected by the Pet Health Club dispute.
The group added: “There’s no doubt this support and solidarity from the wider veterinary industry would extend to the RCVS as well, should they need it.”