Tvis Ltd v Howserv Services Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1103 (02 October 2024)

Tvis Ltd v Howserv Services Ltd & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 1103 (02 October 2024)

The Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in his assessment of conceptual similarity and distinctive character, and failed to properly evaluate evidence of actual confusion. The visual and aural similarities, moderate distinctive character, and evidence of confusion established a likelihood of confusion between PETSURE and VETSURE. The appeal was allowed and TVIS's claims under sections 5(2) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, as well as passing off, succeeded.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1103
Parties
Claimant/appellant: TVIS LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: HOWSERV SERVICES LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: HOWSERV LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: TICORP LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (intellectual Property List, Chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for TVIS LIMITED
Legal Topics
Likelihood of Confusion, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off, Distinctive Character, Conceptual Similarity
Intellectual Property Trademark Law Likelihood of Confusion Trademark Infringement Passing Off Distinctive Character Conceptual Similarity

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TVIS LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

HOWSERV SERVICES LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

HOWSERV LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

TICORP LIMITED

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (intellectual Property List, Chancery Division) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sign PETSURE is confusingly similar to the registered trade mark VETSURE for pet insurance services
  2. 2 Whether there is a likelihood of confusion under sections 5(2) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  3. 3 Assessment of distinctive character and conceptual similarity

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in his assessment of conceptual similarity and distinctive character, and failed to properly evaluate evidence of actual confusion. The visual and aural similarities, moderate distinctive character, and evidence of confusion established a likelihood of confusion between PETSURE and VETSURE. The appeal was allowed and TVIS's claims under sections 5(2) and 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, as well as passing off, succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for TVIS LIMITED

Orders

  • Declaration of invalidity of PETSURE registration under section 5(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  • Finding of infringement under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994