TVIS Limited v Howserv Services Limited & Ors

TVIS Limited v Howserv Services Limited & Ors

The Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in his assessment of conceptual similarity, the distinctive character of the VETSURE mark, and the evidence of actual confusion. The marks VETSURE and PETSURE are visually and aurally similar, conceptually close, and the evidence shows actual confusion among consumers. The distinctive character of VETSURE is at least moderate, and the interdependency principle applies given the identical services. There is a likelihood of confusion under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and TVIS's claims for trade mark infringement and passing off succeed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: TVIS Limited; Defendant/respondent: Howserv Services Limited; Defendant/respondent: Howserv Limited; Defendant/respondent: Ticorp Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Trade Mark Infringement, Likelihood of Confusion, Passing Off
Intellectual Property Trade Mark Infringement Likelihood of Confusion Passing Off

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TVIS Limited

Claimant/appellant

Howserv Services Limited

Defendant/respondent

Howserv Limited

Defendant/respondent

Ticorp Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sign PETSURE is confusingly similar to the trade mark VETSURE for pet insurance services under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994
  2. 2 Whether there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in assessing conceptual similarity, distinctive character, and evidence of actual confusion

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal found that the judge erred in his assessment of conceptual similarity, the distinctive character of the VETSURE mark, and the evidence of actual confusion. The marks VETSURE and PETSURE are visually and aurally similar, conceptually close, and the evidence shows actual confusion among consumers. The distinctive character of VETSURE is at least moderate, and the interdependency principle applies given the identical services. There is a likelihood of confusion under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994, and TVIS's claims for trade mark infringement and passing off succeed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • TVIS's claims under section 5(2) and section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 succeed.