Dryrobe Wins Trademark Dispute Over Rival’s ‘D-Robe’ Brand
In a recent ruling from the UK High Court, outdoor-apparel company Dryrobe has secured a decisive victory over a smaller competitor trading under the name D-Robe. The court found that D-Robe's use of its name and branding amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, and gave the rival just one week to cease selling products under the infringing brand name.
Background: What is Dryrobe?
Dryrobe was founded in 2010 by surfer and entrepreneur Gideon Bright, initially as a waterproof towel-lined "changing robe" for surfers and open-water swimmers. Over time, the brand's oversized waterproof coats, designed for warmth and convenience after swims or outdoor sports, become hugely popular, not only amongst surfers and triathletes, but also among dog walkers, outdoor enthusiasts, and cold-water swimmers.
As Dryrobe grew in popularity, particularly during the surge of interest in outdoor sports during the COVID-19 lockdowns, its robes became widely recognised, turning into a near-iconic brand in the outdoor clothing market.
The Dispute: D-Robe arrives on the scene
In 2024, Dryrobe brought legal proceedings against D-Robe (owned by Caesr Group Limited), claiming that D-Robe's name and branding were so visually and conceptually similar to Dryrobe that consumers were likely to be confused.
D-Robe's defence rested in part on an argument common in trademark disputes: that "Dryrobe" had become a generic or descriptive term, a bit like "thermos" or "escalator", meaning it could no longer function as a trademark. Under that theory, D-Robe argued that it was simply using a descriptive "category name" rather than infringing a brand.
Dryrobe Wins Trademark Dispute: No Genericide
Last week the High Court rejected D-Robe's "genericide" defence and found the use of D-Robe to be an infringement on Dryrobe's trademarks and a case of passing off. In reaching its decision, the court noted that although Dryrobe had entered the public consciousness, perhaps even becoming a household name, that did not automatically mean its trademark had lost distinctiveness. Rather, by the relevant date, "Dryrobe" continued to function as a mark capable of distinguishing the goods of one undertaking from those of another.
Judge, Melissa Clarke, found a "high degree of visual similarity" between the marks "Dryrobe" and "D-Robe," and concluded that a "substantial proportion of attentive consumers" would likely link the two, and indeed be confused. As a result, D-Robe has been ordered to cease use of the name within one week of the ruling.
Why this judgment matters
Dryrobe winning this trademark dispute matters for the following reasons:
1. Trademark protection can survive even if a brand name becomes widely used. The court's clear rejection of the "genericide" defence reinforces that long-term use and popularity do not automatically erase a brand's distinctiveness. In markets crowded with copycats, this sends a powerful message: brands must remain vigilant, but their efforts to build recognition are not necessarily their downfall.
2. A strong brand and consistent protection strategy pay off. Dryrobe's willingness to bring a claim, coupled with solid evidence of its brand's reputation and distinctiveness, demonstrates the importance of an active trademark strategy, especially for brands whose products are easily imitated.
3. Consumer confusion is a key standard. The ruling highlights how courts assess trademarks not just on similarities in names, but on how an average consumer perceives them. Where similarity is high enough to cause confusion, courts may side decisively with the original brand owner.
What is next for Dryrobe?
For Dryrobe, this is more than a legal victory; it's a validation of the brand's identity and a protective bulwark as it looks to expand, both in terms of new products and international reach. According to reports, Dryrobe intends to use the ruling as a springboard to broaden its product line and defend its intellectual property aggressively.
For other brands, particularly those in the outdoor apparel and lifestyle sectors, this case serves as a blueprint: trademark owners must not assume their rights are safe merely because their brand is popular. Active monitoring, enforcement, and a robust trademark portfolio remain essential.
For consumers and retailers, the decision should bring clarity: from now on, "Dryrobe" will more reliably point to the original brand, reducing confusion in the marketplace and helping protect the integrity of brand origin.
The judgment in this dispute reinforces the value of trademarks even when a brand becomes widely used, and offers a useful precedent for other businesses grappling with copycats and brand dilution risks.
Make an Enquiry Now
For practical, brand protection advice tailored to your business, call our trademark experts on 0131 478 4724 or complete an Online Enquiry.
We have helped hundreds of individuals and businesses identify and protect their brand.
Please note the contents of this blog is given for information only and must not be relied upon. Legal advice should always be sought in relation to your specific circumstances.
