How Dryrobe won its trademark genericide case and why monitoring matters
If your brand name starts being used as a generic term for your entire product category, you have a serious problem. In trademark law, it's called genericide, and it can cost you your registration.
Hoover. Sellotape. Jacuzzi. These are all still registered trademarks, but many consumers use the names as if they're generic words. When that happens at scale, competitors can argue your mark should be revoked because it no longer functions as a badge of origin.
A recent UK court case shows exactly how this plays out in practice, and why active brand monitoring made the difference between keeping and losing a trademark.
What happened in the Dryrobe case
Dryrobe makes outdoor changing robes, the kind used by surfers, wild swimmers, and anyone who needs to stay warm and dry outdoors. The brand became hugely popular during the Covid lockdowns when outdoor activities surged.
In 2025, Dryrobe sued a competitor called D-Robe for trademark infringement and passing off. D-Robe counterclaimed that the Dryrobe marks should be revoked because the word "dryrobe" had become a generic term for changing robes, not a brand name.
The case went to trial at the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC). The court found that while there was some evidence of the public using "dryrobe" generically, the trademark had not become the common name in the trade. The mark was allowed to stay on the register, and Dryrobe won its infringement claim.
Why Dryrobe won
The court was clear about what tipped the balance. Dryrobe had taken what the judge described as "relentless efforts" to combat generic use of its brand name since 2019. Specifically, the company had been:
Using online brand protection tools and internet crawling technology to detect misuse. Correcting media outlets that used "dryrobe" as a generic term instead of referring to "changing robes." Creating marketing material specifically to educate the public that Dryrobe is a brand, not a product category. Actively searching social media for uses of "dryrobe" and "#dryrobe" as generic terms, and requesting corrections.
In other words, Dryrobe didn't just register its trademark and hope for the best. It actively monitored how the brand was being used, and it acted on what it found.
The court contrasted this with the GRILLZ case from 2018, where a trademark for decorative tooth covers was revoked partly because the owner hadn't taken steps to prevent generic use.
What is genericide and why should you care?
Genericide happens when a distinctive brand name becomes so commonly used that consumers stop associating it with a specific company. Instead, they use it as the name for the entire product category.
The legal test under section 46(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 is whether the proprietor's acts or inactivity have caused the mark to become a common name in the trade for the relevant product or service.
The key word there is "inactivity." If you don't monitor how your mark is being used and you don't take steps to correct misuse, you're building the case against yourself.
The consequences are serious. If your mark is revoked for genericide, you lose the exclusive right to use that name. Competitors can use it freely. Years of brand investment, marketing spend, and customer recognition can evaporate.
What you can learn from this
The Dryrobe case offers a clear lesson for any UK trademark owner. The brands that survive genericide challenges are the ones that actively monitor and police their marks.
Here's what that looks like in practice:
Monitor how your brand is being used. Not just by competitors, but by customers, journalists, influencers, and social media users. If people start using your brand name as a generic term, you need to know about it early.
Correct misuse quickly. When a journalist writes "dryrobe" as a generic term, or an influencer uses your brand name to describe a competitor's product, a polite correction now prevents a legal argument later.
Keep records. The court in the Dryrobe case was persuaded by evidence of systematic, ongoing brand protection activity. If you ever face a genericide challenge, you'll need to show what steps you took and when.
Monitor the IPO journal for conflicting filings. If other companies are filing trademarks using your brand name or close variations, that's an early signal that your mark is being treated as generic. Over 203,000 trademark applications were filed in the UK in 2025. You need to know if any of them are using your name.
The connection to trademark monitoring
The Dryrobe case is a reminder that trademark registration is the starting point, not the finish line. The value of your mark depends on ongoing vigilance.
Lewis Silkin, the law firm that represented the defendant in the case, put it plainly in their analysis: "Regular monitoring and periodic review of your marks, together with measures to guard against genericide, are essential to retain a brand's distinctiveness and legal enforceability."
This is exactly the gap TMGuard was built to fill. Most UK SMEs register their trademark and then never check the IPO journal again. They don't know when someone files a similar mark. They don't know when their brand name is being used in ways that could weaken their registration. They find out too late, or not at all.
Check your brand
If you own a UK trademark, run a free conflict check at tmguard.uk/check. It scans the UK trademark register in seconds and shows you what's out there. If someone has filed a mark that conflicts with yours, you have exactly 2 months to oppose it.
Dryrobe kept its trademark because it monitored its brand and acted on what it found. The question for every other brand owner is simple: are you doing the same?
TMGuard monitors the weekly UK IPO journal and alerts you when a conflicting trademark is filed, from £99/year. Check your brand free at tmguard.uk/check
Sources:
Dryrobe v Caesr Group (t/a D-Robe) [2025] EWHC 3167 (IPEC)
Lewis Silkin, "When your brand becomes the word: the risk of trade mark genericide," 10 March 2026
Trade Marks Act 1994, section 46(1)(c)