IVC started writing to the practices at the start of last year, threatening legal action over their use of the term 'Pet Health Club', which the company says infringes its trademark rights.
In March 2025, IVC sent follow-up letters to affected practices, offering an extension until 31st December 2025 to comply with its demands, but according to We Are Spartacus, there has been no contact since the deadline passed.
Meanwhile, We Are Spartacus reports that 200 veterinary professionals have registered their opposition to IVC's claims via its website.
Dr Natalie Morris-Webb, owner of Malthouse Vets, one of the affected practices, said: “Last year was a worrying time for lots of independent practices with a ‘Pet Health Club.’
"Many of those that came forward had been using the term long before IVC registered its wordmark in 2019 and either had to face the cost and hassle of rebranding their health plans or enter into a legal dispute with IVC.
“Neither of these are appealing options for independent practices, or their owner managers.
"Although IVC appears to have ceased defending the ‘pet health club’ wordmark, with none of the affected practices reporting any further correspondence for many months, the uncertainty is still there.
"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.”
An IVC Evidensia spokesperson said: "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."
"A material number of those previously infringing our trademark have now updated their branding.
"Anyone still in breach was given clear notification, so the position is unambiguous - they are required to update."
The Pet Health Club website does not currently state that the scheme is owned by IVC Evidensia.
www.wearespartacus.co.uk
The group reports that over 150 veterinary professionals have registered on its website and pledged their support.
The campaigners say they've been astonished with the response and believe the dozens of practices that have received legal letters and signed up so far could just be the tip of the iceberg.
Since the story first came to light, VetSurgeon.org understands IVC has sent follow-up letters to a number of practices saying it has decided to offer a stay of execution and extend the deadline to comply until the 31st December 2025, before it considers taking further legal action.
However, the campaigners estimate that to rebrand so many ‘Pet Health Clubs’ will cost £250,000 and £350,000 in total, so they have now appointed an intellectual property lawyer to provide specialist advice on whether such a common term can be protected with a word mark.
Alex Green of Broadway Vets said: “Initially we set up We Are Spartacus to bring all the affected practices together to support each other, and while we’ve done this, we’ve also brought the wider veterinary community together who want to stand up to IVC Evidensia and the ridiculous word mark.
“Lots of practices have had a ‘Pet Health Club’ for more than 10 years and the majority of those that have come forward were using the term long before IVC registered its word mark in 2019, so it’s clearly an issue that people feel very passionate about, especially when it’s likely to cost each practice a significant amount of money and time to rebrand.
“We’ve been overwhelmed by the number of people who have registered to support us, especially those that aren’t affected but who want to stand shoulder to shoulder with us against such an unnecessary and underhand way of doing business.
"However, there are still several practices that are affected that we haven’t heard from, and we’d urge them to come and join us now.
“We’re also keen to hear from those that received initial letters and haven’t yet had a follow-up offering a stay of execution until the end of the year.
"Whilst we’re delighted that IVC has extended their deadline, it does not resolve the fact that their threats are unacceptable when every practice in the country provides animal, or ‘pet’, healthcare, or ‘health’, in a community-based service, or ‘club’.
“They don’t need to fight or worry about this on their own and we’re stronger as a collective, especially when it comes to pooling resources and expertise.
"We’ve already appointed a specialist IP lawyer to advise us, and the view is that given the extensive prior use of ‘Pet Health Club,’ it would be crazy to allow this to escalate to court when it can be amicably resolved.
“It’s also come to light that IVC has even registered ‘It’s not what we do, it’s why we do it’ which does rather sum it all up.
Spartacus just wants to know why IVC is doing what it’s doing.”
VetSurgeon.org has seen copies of correspondence from IVC which claims that its Pet Health Club has built up goodwill amongst the group's customers, and that the use of the term by other practices risks confusing the public and taking unfair advantage of the reputation built up by IVC.
One wonders which bright spark at IVC thought this was a good idea.
Threatening legal action against small independent practices is not a great look in a caring profession.
Besides which, where is the evidence that other practices using the term 'Pet Health Club' has any impact on IVC's business whatsoever?
It is also difficult to see how significant consumer confusion would arise in practice, given that pet health plans are typically offered to a practice’s existing clients rather than marketed as standalone consumer brands.
Ironically, given the CMA investigation, IVC's Pet Health Club website is opaque about which practice group (or practice) provides its own service.
How it is therefore possible to argue that it has built up a reputation is also unclear.
Finally, if you Google "Pet Health Club", you'll see that IVC already dominates the search results in a way that makes it vanishingly unlikely that its service is going to be confused with anyone else's.
This would all be laughable, except it's not if you're one of the 20 or 30 practices that VetSurgeon.org hears have been on the receiving end of a threatening letter.
Natalie Morris-Webb MRCVS from Malthouse Veterinary Group, one of the affected practices, said: “I was stunned to receive a letter from IVC claiming that our Pet Health Club, which we launched in 2017, is an infringement under the Trade Marks Act 1994 and that we’re using a registered word mark without the consent of the proprietor.
“It’s a ubiquitous term that lots of practices use and it quickly became apparent that these letters have been sent out far and wide.
"There are practices that have been using the term for well over 10 years and to rebrand will be very expensive and time-consuming for what are mostly small businesses.
“We’ve had some conversation with IVC’s representatives to discuss how else we can resolve the situation and whether such a heavy-handed approach is really necessary, because surely IVC don’t want a legal spat with so many independent businesses.
“It’s also very worrying to receive aggressive legal threats from a huge organisation, so it was reassuring to hear from other practices that are facing the same dilemma, and we want to extend our support to others in the same position.
"We’ve therefore launched We Are Spartacus where any practices that are affected can register their details.
"We can then work together and decide how to move forward as a collective."
Hopefully, there will be no need.
Hopefully, someone higher up the chain at IVC will stop this madness, admit that it called this one wrong and immediately write to the businesses it has already contacted, apologise profusely and withdraw its threat.
But if the company persists and wins it'll probably be a pyrrhic victory.
After all, pet health plans have largely been sold on the back of routine flea, worm and tick control, the need for which is starting to be questioned by the profession, particularly in the light of research pointing to the possible harm to other species, but also because of the greater focus on the cost of veterinary care.