Judgment was handed down today in Dryrobe Limited v Caesr Group Limited [2025] EWHC 3167, a rare case concerning ‘genericism’ in intellectual property law.
The well-known brand Dryrobe first introduced the changing robe into the UK and owns trade marks protecting the word Dryrobe. It brought proceedings for trade mark infringement and passing off against Caesr Group Limited, who were selling changing robes under the brand D-Robe and causing consumers to be confused between the two brands.
Caesr Group’s case was that Dryrobe had become a generic term that had lost its ability to function as a trade mark (like Aspirin, Escalator, Pina Colada and Zip did). It argued that people simply thought a ‘dryrobe’ was a category of goods, not a brand name. The High Court (IPEC) rejected that defence, in a rare detailed consideration of so-called ‘genericide’ in intellectual property law. It held that even if a trade mark for a novel product has become a household name – like Velcro or Hoover – that does not necessarily mean it has become generic and should be revoked.
Dryrobe’s marks were upheld, and the use of D-Robe was found to have infringed and amounted to passing off. It was also held that Caesr Group knew or should have known of the infringement.
Theo Barclay represented the successful claimant, Dryrobe. He was instructed by Addleshaw Goddard.
The Judgment is available here.
