CEO of Vetr Addresses Ongoing Trademark Dispute With Michigan-Based Vetr Health
Vetr says a no-payment coexistence proposal could have avoided continuing legal expense, but the company will now pursue all lawful remedies to protect its brand
GRANTS PASS, Ore., Aug. 19, 2026 — Vetr LLC, the veterinary technology and animal-health company founded by CEO Andrew Hamilton, today addressed its ongoing trademark dispute with Michigan-based Vetr Health LLC, saying it attempted to reach a practical coexistence arrangement before continuing formal proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Vetr filed two opposition proceedings before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board challenging Vetr Health’s applications to register the name “VETR HEALTH.” The matters, Opposition Nos. 91296146 and 91297151, were consolidated in June 2025 and remain pending.
The proceedings concern Vetr Health’s applications covering virtual, digital and in-home veterinary services. Vetr has its own pending applications for the VETR name in connection with veterinary services, online pharmacy services, animal-health products and related commercial activities.
Vetr Health operates online at vetrhealth.com. According to the company’s website, it was founded by Sadoc Paredes, chief executive officer; Rachel Berkal, chief operating officer; Ruby Paredes, chief diagnostics officer; and Brad Boike, DVM, chief medical officer.
According to Vetr, it offered Vetr Health a coexistence agreement under which both businesses could continue operating within agreed brand boundaries intended to reduce potential consumer confusion. Vetr says the proposal required no payment from Vetr Health and offered a path that could have avoided the continued expense and uncertainty of formal trademark proceedings.
Vetr says Vetr Health did not accept the proposed arrangement. In Vetr’s view, declining a no-payment resolution converted a manageable branding issue into a potentially costly and time-consuming dispute for a growing Michigan veterinary business.
“We believe early-stage companies should choose practical solutions before committing time and resources to prolonged legal conflict,” Hamilton said. “Our proposal would have allowed both organizations to continue building their businesses without requiring Vetr Health to pay us. When that opportunity was not accepted, we were left with no reasonable alternative but to protect the Vetr name through the formal legal process.”
Competing Claims Over the VETR Name
Vetr Health LLC, based in Grand Rapids, Michigan, filed applications for the VETR HEALTH word mark and a related design mark in July 2023. Its applications identify services including digital consultations, virtual veterinary care and in-home veterinary services.
Vetr LLC subsequently filed applications for VETR covering online veterinary services, veterinary advice, pharmacy fulfillment and online retail services involving veterinary medications and animal-health products.
In its opposition filings, Vetr challenges whether Vetr Health had established qualifying use of its marks for all the services identified in its applications by the relevant filing dates. Vetr Health disputes those allegations and has asserted in its filings that it began developing and using its brand before Vetr filed its federal applications.
No final determination has been issued on the merits. The pending TTAB proceedings concern whether the contested marks may be federally registered. They are administrative trademark matters rather than a civil lawsuit seeking monetary damages.
Vetr Questions the Commercial Judgment Behind Continued Conflict
Vetr says its proposed coexistence approach reflected meaningful differences between the companies’ operating models. Vetr Health describes itself as a Michigan-based, family-owned provider of membership, mobile and in-home veterinary care. Vetr operates a broader digital veterinary and animal-health platform offering veterinary access, medications and livestock products to customers across the United States.
According to Vetr, those differences created an opportunity to establish practical limits around branding, geography and commercial activity without requiring either company to abandon its business or incur the expense associated with a continuing dispute.
“Trademark disagreements are business problems before they become legal problems,” Hamilton said. “We presented what we believe was a fair, commercially sensible and cost-free path to coexistence. Choosing continued conflict instead creates avoidable legal expense, distracts management and introduces uncertainty that could otherwise be directed toward customers, employees and growth.”
Vetr believes the decision to continue contesting the matter reflects questionable commercial judgment because the proposed agreement offered Vetr Health a way to preserve its existing operations without making a financial payment to Vetr.
The company emphasized, however, that its criticism concerns the handling of the trademark dispute and not the quality of veterinary care provided by Vetr Health’s veterinarians, technicians or other clinical personnel.
Vetr Evaluating Additional Legal Options
Vetr says it will continue prosecuting the pending TTAB proceedings and is evaluating other legal options available to protect its name, commercial identity and customer relationships.
Hamilton said Vetr intends to pursue all appropriate remedies to the fullest extent permitted by law. Depending on future developments, those efforts could include additional USPTO proceedings or claims filed in an appropriate court. No additional court action has been announced as of the date of this release.
“We remain willing to consider a serious and commercially reasonable resolution,” Hamilton said. “At the same time, Vetr and I are prepared to take every lawful and necessary action available to protect the company, its brand and the investments being made in its future.”
Vetr says the expanding scope of its veterinary, pharmaceutical and livestock operations makes clear brand identification particularly important. The company maintains that customers should be able to distinguish between Vetr’s national animal-health platform at vetr.com and the separate Michigan veterinary business operating at vetrhealth.com.
About the Proceedings
Vetr LLC v. Vetr Health LLC, Opposition Nos. 91296146 and 91297151, are pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
An opposition is an administrative proceeding through which a party may challenge another party’s right to obtain a federal trademark registration. The existence of an opposition does not establish liability or wrongdoing. The allegations and defenses raised by both parties remain subject to adjudication, and no final decision has been entered.
About Vetr
Vetr is a veterinary technology and animal-health company founded by Andrew Hamilton. The company works to improve access to veterinary services, medications and animal-health products through digital care, product development, and retail and wholesale distribution. Vetr serves pet owners, livestock producers, veterinary professionals and animal-care organizations across the United States.
