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.
Bullying small independent businesses is not a great look, particularly in a caring profession such as this.
Besides which, where is the evidence that other practices using the term 'Pet Health Club' has any impact on IVC's business whatsoever?
After all, pet health plans, or clubs, are inexorably linked to the practice providing the subscription services they offer.
Nobody goes online looking for which practice offers the best pet health club, like they were choosing between the Hurlingham and the Groucho. It's something offered to the existing clients of a practice.
So there is literally zero chance of confusion over who is providing the service.
And on what planet does IVC think a client of another practice might be presented with an option to join a pet health club and think: "Oh this is that wonderfully smashy nicey club I have seen elsewhere. I must join it."
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.
PS: Whilst you're here, take a moment to see our latest job opportunities for vets.