Advertisment
The homepage of the advertisers’ website included the following:
The company logo appeared at the top left corner of the home page. The logo featured a drawing of a dog in green font wearing a blue bib and encircled with a line that became a hand. The name “Support Dog UK & EU” was beside the image.
“Psychiatric Assistance Dog & Support Animal Registry (UK & EU).
Register your Psychiatric Assistance Dog, Emotional Support Dog, or Therapy Dog today! We provide you with the legal protection to take your dog into public places, as well as protection from discrimination under the Equality Act of 2010.”
“Register with the ONLY Psychiatric Assistance Dog & Support Dogs Registry in the UK and EU.
Registration Benefits
• Get your animal legally recognised
• Qualify for public access rights and protection
• Get access to more services and places that allow assistance dogs
• Have your emotional support dog with you in accommodations (private, or council)
• Access to our legal team is available; we will get involved and help if your rights are being violated”
Further down the home page included a section on training, including details of the courses available.
On the top of the section detailing the ‘Certified Psychiatric Assistance Dog Training Course’, it stated:
“195125 USERS ENROLLED’
A link to view the course was provided.
Complaint
A complaint was received from Support Dogs a registered charity in the UK who raised the following issues:
Issue 1:
The complainants considered that the logo used on the website was a reimaging of their own logo. They also considered that the name ‘Support Dog UK & EU’ was similar to their own and that the use of both the logo and name was resulting in confusion among consumers.
Issue 2:
The complainants considered the claim “Register with the ONLY Psychiatric Assistance Dog & Support Dogs Registry in the UK and EU” to be misleading as there was no official or legal register of assistance dogs in the UK. They said that the Equality Act of 2010 does not require an owner to legally register their dog with any organisation.
The complainants said that the advertising was resulting in members of the public mistakenly believing that they needed to register their dogs.
Issue 3:
The complainants believed that the reference to 195,000 users was the number of users registered and they considered this misleading as they did not believe this figure could be evidenced.
Response
The advertisers responded to the issues raised:
Issue 1:
The advertisers said that they had consulted and confirmed with their solicitor that there were no copyright issues. They said that they had not copied any of the content, webpage design, or logo, which might cause people to think they were the same organisation. They said that they were of the position that while both logos featured a dog, the similarities ended there.
Issue 2:
The advertisers referred to their ‘Contact us 24/7’ webpage which had stated the following:
“The Support Dog UK & EU Registry is a platform for registering support & psychiatric assistance dogs from the Psychiatric Service Dog Association Limited. Our registration services are designed to facilitate easy access to assistance dog or emotional support dog documentation, provide updates about legal changes, offer information on service dogs, and ensure access to our 24/7 support line for any issues you may face at venues.”
They said that the complainant’s business focused on providing trained dogs for Autism, Epilepsy, and other disabilities and that they did not reference psychiatric assistance dogs or emotional support dogs on their website. In view of this they did not see any connection between them and the complainant’s organisation.
The advertisers also stated that they were the sole registration service provider for psychiatric assistance dogs and emotional support dogs. They said that such registration wasn’t mandated by UK law and that this information was clearly presented on their website. They said that their goal was to support individuals with mental health disabilities and their self-trained psychiatric assistance dogs, ensuring they had everything required to be integrated into society. They said that their registration process and the issuance of identification cards was geared to assist owners and their psychiatric assistance dogs in gaining broader public access to enhance their day-to-day lives. They referred to information provided on their ‘Contact us 24/7’ webpage which had stated under the “Before Your Register” heading:
Registering your dog as a Psychiatric Assistance Dog does not make them an official assistance dog; that is what the training is for.”
And
“The purpose of our registration services is to facilitate access to your assistance dog or support dog’s documents, receive updates regarding law changes and information relating to service dogs, and provide access to our 24/7 support line in case of any issues you may run into at a venue.”
Issue 3:
The advertisers said that they suspected that the complainants may not take into account that their website offered purely registration services while their partner Service Dog Training School International (SDTSI) offered a full training course which was linked on the advertisers’ website. They said that the promotional banner referred to, featured the number of completed enrolments (195,125) at the time of writing.
They also said that their clients were offered the opportunity to self-train their dogs and were not coerced to buy the registration from them and then train their dogs with SDTSI. They said that the course from SDTSI was unrelated to their registration services and that they never disclose registration figures or customer information on their webpage.
Conclusion
Complaint Upheld In Part
The Complaints Committee considered the detail of the complaint and the advertisers’ response.
Issue 1 – Not Upheld:
The Committee noted the complainant’s concerns.
The Committee noted that both logos appeared in the top left corner of their websites and included a form of the name ‘support dog’ together with a drawing of a dog and also that both website domains and logos included a form of ‘Support Dog’.
The Committee reviewed the website content, observing the style and colours used and noted that the complainant’s logo included an outline drawing of a person holding the paw of a dog together with the words “Support Dogs for Autism, For Epilepsy, For Disability” in white against a blue background.
The Committee noted that both logos included ‘supportdog’ and while both included the drawing of a dog, they were different in design and colour.
Taking account of the overall impression created, the Committee considered that while there were similarities in name, the website and logo designs were sufficiently different and did not consider that the website was in breach of the Code on the basis suggested in the complaint.
Issue 2 – Upheld:
The Complaints Committee noted the concerns raised by the complainants and that there was no legal requirement on an owner to register their dog, nor was there an official register of assistance dogs in the UK.
The Committee noted that the advertising had stated “Register with the ONLY Psychiatric Assistance Dog & Support Dogs Registry in the UK and EU”, as such it had included that it was the only register for the listed animals.
The Committee also noted the information referred to by the advertiser, provided on the ‘Contact us’ page, however, the Committee also noted that it was possible to click through to the registration page without viewing the ‘Contact Us’ webpage. Whilst noting the Registration Disclaimer at the end of the registration page, the Committee considered that as it was significantly separated from the registration form by other text and imagery, it was likely to be missed by website visitors. In the circumstances the Committee considered that the layout and provision of the information was ambiguous and likely to mislead consumers and was in breach of Section 4.1 of the Code.
Issue 3 – Not Upheld:
The Committee noted that the reference to the number of users enrolled was a heading to one of the dog training courses provided and was included in the section of the page dedicated to training. The Committee noted that the statement was “195125 users enrolled’ and no reference had been made to registrations. In the circumstances the Committee did not consider that the advertising was in breach of the Code on the grounds raised.
Action Required:
The advertising should not appear in its current form again. The Committee advised the advertisers to ensure that disclaimers are clearly indicated to consumers.
