Dryrobe v D-Robe – when your brand risks becoming the product
This case is a textbook example of a problem many successful businesses secretly envy and quietly fear at the same time. When your brand becomes so well known that people start using it as the name for the product itself. Think Hoover and Sellotape.
In Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited (trading as D-Robe Outdoors), the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court looked closely at whether “DRYROBE” had crossed that dangerous line into generic use, and what happens when a competitor sails very close to an established brand name.
I want to focus here on the genericisation point and, more importantly, what business owners should take away from it.
The claim, background facts and the court’s decision
Before getting into genericisation, it is worth setting out briefly what this case was actually about.
Dryrobe Limited is the original creator of the waterproof changing robe that became ubiquitous with outdoor swimming, surfing and similar activities. It launched its product in the UK around 2011–2012 and has traded under the brand DRYROBE ever since. For several years, it was effectively the only business selling that type of product in the UK market. It later registered multiple UK trade marks for DRYROBE covering clothing, bags and related goods.
Caesr Group Limited later entered the same market, trading under the name D‑Robe Outdoors. It sold a very similar type of product – a waterproof changing robe – under the name D‑ROBE and the Beaufort Robe. As the market grew, evidence emerged of consumers confusing the two businesses, including customers contacting the wrong company to return goods, complain about quality, or ask about discount codes and sizing.
Dryrobe brought claims for trade mark infringement and passing off. In simple terms, it said that D‑ROBE was too close to DRYROBE, was being used on identical goods, and was causing real confusion in the market.
The defendant denied infringement and counterclaimed. Its core argument was that “dryrobe” or “dry robe” was descriptive or generic – a term used by the public to describe a category of product rather than a brand. If that argument succeeded, Dryrobe’s trade marks would either be invalid or liable to be revoked.
The court rejected that argument. It found that DRYROBE was not generic in law and that Dryrobe’s trade marks were valid and enforceable. The judge accepted extensive evidence of actual consumer confusion and concluded that D‑ROBE infringed Dryrobe’s registered trade marks and amounted to passing off.
That decision on infringement is important in its own right. However, the most interesting and commercially relevant part of the judgment for business owners is the court’s analysis of genericisation – and how close Dryrobe came to the edge of that cliff.
What is genericisation, and why does it matter?
Genericisation happens when a brand name stops being understood as a badge of origin and starts being used as the ordinary name for a type of product.
Classic examples are words like hoover, sellotape and escalator. In everyday speech, people often use those words to describe a category, not a particular manufacturer.
From a trade mark perspective, this is dangerous territory. A registered trade mark can be revoked if it becomes the common name for the goods or services it covers. In simple terms, if everyone uses your brand name to mean the thing itself, you risk losing exclusive rights to it.
That was exactly the argument raised against Dryrobe by D-Robe in their defence.
The argument against Dryrobe
The defendant argued that “dryrobe” or “dry robe” had become a descriptive or generic term for a type of waterproof changing robe, rather than a brand. If that were right, Dryrobe’s registered trade marks would either never have been valid in the first place, or should now be revoked.
This was not a speculative argument. The court heard evidence that:
- many competitors now sell similar changing robes
- members of the public sometimes use “dryrobe” in a descriptive way online
- the product category has grown rapidly, with around 200 competitors entering the market
On the face of it, this is exactly how genericisation begins.
It’s a corollary of success, I guess. If your brand has gone mainstream, then well done – but also, be careful.
Why Dryrobe survived the genericisation attack
The crucial point was not whether people sometimes used the word loosely. It was whether Dryrobe, as a business, had allowed that to happen unchecked.
The court accepted detailed evidence showing that Dryrobe had taken sustained and active steps to protect its brand once the risk became apparent. That included:
- challenging third parties who described non-Dryrobe products as “dryrobes”
- consistently pushing the generic term “changing robe” as the category name
- monitoring social media and online marketplaces for misuse of the name
- politely but persistently asking users, journalists and influencers to correct their wording
- publishing educational content explaining that DRYROBE is a registered trade mark
This was not occasional enforcement or a box-ticking exercise. The court described it as regular, systematic and consistent.
That mattered.
Even where internal emails showed the founder wrestling with the commercial realities of policing a successful brand, the judge accepted that these were thought experiments, not evidence that the company had given up on its trade mark rights.
The result was clear. DRYROBE had not become generic in law, even if some consumers used the term casually.
A critical lesson: success creates legal risk
One of the most striking aspects of this case is that Dryrobe’s problem only arose because it had been so successful.
For years, it was effectively the only product of its kind in the UK market. When competitors arrived, the public naturally reached for the word they already knew.
This is a pattern that repeats across industries:
- new product category
- one brand dominates early
- brand name becomes shorthand for the product
- competitors exploit the shorthand
- trade mark validity is challenged
If you are building a category-defining product, this risk is not theoretical – it is part of the game.
What business owners should do to avoid genericisation
There are several practical lessons from this case.
First, decide early what the category name is. If you do not define it, the market will, and it may use your brand name by default.
Second, educate relentlessly but proportionately. Correct misuse politely, consistently and with evidence. Courts look very closely at what you actually do, not what your brand guidelines say.
Third, monitor the places that matter. Social media, search results, online marketplaces and press articles are where generic use takes hold fastest.
Fourth, accept that this is a long game. The court was persuaded by years of sustained activity, not one-off legal letters.
Fifth, remember that internal doubt is normal. The founder’s emails questioning strategy did not damage the case because the outward behaviour of the business was consistent.
A warning for fast followers
The case is also a warning for businesses choosing brand names that sit very close to established players.
Even where a competitor argues that a term is descriptive or generic, evidence of consumer confusion cuts sharply the other way. In this case, customers repeatedly contacted the wrong company to return goods, claim repairs or apply discount codes.
If your growth strategy relies on living in the slipstream of a market leader’s name, you may find that trade mark law has very little sympathy.
Final thoughts
Genericisation is not about whether people misuse your brand name occasionally. It is about whether you, as the brand owner, have allowed that misuse to define the market.
Dryrobe won because it could show discipline, persistence and an understanding that brand protection is part of running a successful business, not an optional extra once you are famous.
For founders and brand owners, the message is simple.
If your brand is becoming a verb, a noun, or the name of the thing itself, enjoy the success – but start policing it properly, or someone else will decide what your brand means.
