Dryrobe Limited (Dryrobe) is a manufacturer and retailer of outdoor clothing products, most famous for its changing robes, an oversized waterproof coat with a towelled lining. Dryrobe sells these products under the brand name DRYROBE and owns various UK trade mark registrations for DRYROBE.

Caesr Group (D-Robe) was also trading in the UK in waterproof changing robes. D-Robe used a number of signs in the course of trade, including D-ROBE and the figurative mark shown below:

Dryrobe issued proceedings alleging trade mark infringement under section 10(2) and section 10(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (TMA), as well as passing off. D-Robe denied infringement and counterclaimed that Dryrobe’s trade marks were invalid under sections 3(1)(b), 3(1)(c) and 3(1)(d) TMA. D-Robe also sought revocation of the DRYROBE marks pursuant section 46(1)(c) TMA.

The counterclaim

The IPEC addressed D-Robe’s invalidity counterclaim first. The key issue was whether the DRYROBE mark was:

• devoid of distinctive character (section 3(1)(b));
• descriptive of the goods or their characteristics (section 3(1)(c)); and/or
• customary in the current language or established practices of the trade (section 3(1)(d)).

The court accepted that DRYROBE could not be considered descriptive for all goods covered by Dryrobe’s trade mark registrations. For example, in relation to goods such as bags and hats. However, the position was different for the core products at issue, namely, changing robes. In respect of those goods, the court found that DRYROBE was descriptive of at least one characteristic.

D-Robe argued that “dryrobe” had become a generic term used by the public and the trade to refer to changing robes generally, rather than as a badge of origin for Dryrobe’s products.

The IPEC considered a significant amount of evidence submitted by both parties, including press articles and social media usage. The court noted following key features of this evidence:

• Many press articles did not clearly use the term generically or were ambiguous as to whether they were referring to the category of goods or Dryrobe’s brand. For example: “I used to take the mickey out of ‘dryrobes’, but they are brilliant… they start from around £45 and go up to around £140, from dryrobe.”
• Some press articles used the term in a generic way but explicitly acknowledged it as a brand, for example: “What is a ‘dryrobe’ you might ask… A dryrobe is an extremely useful towel/coat combination…its generic term derives from its earliest iteration, the Dryrobe™.”
• Dryrobe had actively approached social media users to discourage generic use. Although there were examples where posters were unaware that DRYROBE was a brand, there were also examples where users used “dryrobe” generically while still knowing that Dryrobe was a company and DRYROBE was its brand.

While there were examples of “dryrobe” and “dry robe” being used in a generic sense, the court did not consider that this evidence went far enough to establish that the term was incapable of functioning as a trade mark. Crucially, the court gave weight to Dryrobe’s proactive strategy for tackling generic use.

The court then considered whether DRYROBE had acquired distinctive character through use. The judge found there was compelling evidence that a significant proportion of the relevant public would identify goods sold under the DRYROBE mark as originating from Dryrobe. As such, the court held that DRYROBE had acquired a medium level of distinctive character.

Some of the key evidence that led the court to conclude this was:

• D-Robe’s admissions in cross-examination that Dryrobe was the biggest player in the UK changing robe market.
• Extensive sales volumes and revenues, including net sales revenues of approximately £20.3m in 2021, £14.7m in 2022, and £18m in 2023. The court noted that each sale effectively operated as advertising as the robes were worn outdoors and prominently featured the DRYROBE branding.
• High-profile commercial relationships with major organisations including Team GB, Red Bull, Top Gear and Comic Relief.
• Substantial marketing expenditure, including over £1.38m in 2022, almost £2m in 2023, and almost £3m in 2024. 

Taken together, this evidence persuaded the IPEC that DRYROBE had acquired distinctiveness, despite the somewhat descriptive nature of the word.

D-Robe’s revocation claim under section 46(1)(c) TMA was somewhat closely linked to the genericness points discussed above. The court concluded that DRYROBE continued to function as a mark of origin, and that Dryrobe was clearly taking active steps to prevent generic use.

Overall, D-Robe’s counterclaims for invalidity and revocation failed.

Infringement claim 

Having found Dryrobe’s registrations valid, the IPEC turned to the infringement claim.

In assessing similarity between DRYROBE and D-ROBE, the court found:

• A high degree of visual similarity;
• A medium degree of aural similarity; and
• A medium degree of conceptual similarity.

In relation to D-Robe’s figurative mark, the court found a low degree of visual similarity and low to medium conceptual similarity, due to the presence of a shield device which was considered a dominant element. However, the court maintained its conclusions on aural similarity.

Importantly, Dryrobe’s infringement claim included strong evidence of actual confusion, which the court found confirmed the risk beyond doubt. Examples included direct confusion, such as consumers contacting Dryrobe to return or exchange D-Robe products as well as indirect confusion, where consumers contacted Dryrobe to ask whether D-Robe was connected with Dryrobe.

The court found that there was infringement under section 10(2) TMA.

While reputation and acquired distinctiveness are legally distinct concepts, the court was satisfied that the DRYROBE marks had a reputation, based on the same evidence relied upon for acquired distinctiveness.

Given the similarity of the marks and the court’s findings on confusion, it was also satisfied that consumers would make a link between the marks. The section 10(3) TMA claim therefore also succeeded.

Finally, the court was also satisfied that all the elements of passing off had been made out based on its earlier conclusions in relation to the trade mark infringement claims.

In short 

This decision highlights the importance of investing in brand education and having an effective enforcement strategy in place to prevent a trade mark becoming generic. Dryrobe successfully overcame invalidity and revocation attacks by producing strong evidence that consumers recognised DRYROBE as a badge of origin, supported by sustained marketing investment and a consistent approach to challenging misuse in the press and on social media. The case is a useful reminder that brand owners must actively manage how their marks are used in the market, particularly where a name is descriptive-adjacent and at risk of becoming shorthand for the product itself. Dryrobe had in fact consulted with its IP lawyers when constructing its enforcement and marketing strategies, highlighting the importance of obtaining input at an early stage on how best to grow a brand name, without jeopardising its distinctiveness. 

Case details at a glance

Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Decision level: IPEC
Parties: Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited (trading as D-Robe Outdoors)
Date: 04 December 2025
Citation: [2025] EWHC 3167 (IPEC)
Decision: dycip.com/2025-ewhc-3167-ipec