AIRBNB trade mark disputes

EU trade mark disputes: AIRBNB 

The General Court of the European Union recently issued two rulings against the US company Airbnb, Inc., which both share a common denominator: a lack of genuine use of the ‘AIRBNB’ trade mark for certain registered goods and services. These judgements, in cases T-1032/23 and T-94/24,, follow revocation applications filed by the Australian company Airtasker Pty Ltd under Article 58(1)(a) EUTMR, on the basis that Airbnb had not effectively used the mark for all the protected services. 

 In both cases, Airbnb had registered the word mark ‘AIRBNB’ with the EUIPO for a wide range of goods and services that clearly extended beyond its core economic activity of providing temporary accommodation and related services. In case T-94/24,, in 2010 the USA company registered the mark no. 009376468 for services covered under Classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Nice Classification. Three years after, in case T-1032/23, the company registered trade mark no. 011933611 for similar goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 43 and 45. 

 At first instance, the EUIPO’s Cancellation Division partially upheld both revocation requests, stating that the marks had not been genuinely used for numerous services. The EUIPO Board of Appeal later confirmed genuine use only for certain services directly linked to Airbnb’s main business, such as accommodation bookings, travel information or sector-specific business directories, and upheld revocation for broader or unrelated services falling outside the tourism and leisure sector. 

Both decisions were appealed to the General Court, which agreed with many of the legal principles but reached different conclusions. In case T-1032/23, the Court fully upheld the EUIPO’s decision and confirmed the partial revocation, noting that Airbnb had failed to demonstrate the genuine use of services such as generic software, cleaning, cultural services and meeting room rentals. Furthermore, the Court emphasised that the protection conferred by a registered trade mark cannot be extended to business areas that are not effectively exploited, nor can it be used to prevent competition in markets that are unrelated to the trade mark owner's actual activity. 

 In contrast, in case T-94/24,, the Court partially overturned the EUIPO’s decision, ruling that the Office had not properly evaluated certain evidence submitted by Airbnb. In particular, the Court gave weight to website captures obtained through the Wayback Machine, as well as to sworn statements showing that Airbnb offered features such as host reviews and virtual communities during the relevant period. These functionalities justified maintaining protection for certain services in Class 36, in particular, the provision of reviews and social networking related to accommodation. Consequently, the Court annulled the EUIPO’s decision on this specific point, but upheld the revocation of protection for other unsubstantiated services, such as messaging, payment processing and educational and cultural services. 

 Both rulings emphasise that genuine use must be actual and continuous for an uninterrupted period of five years and supported by objective and verifiable evidence. Future business plans or mere declarations of intent are not sufficient. Furthermore, the rulings reaffirm that the trade mark owner bears the burden of proof and must provide clear, relevant and sufficient documentation to demonstrate a real market presence for each of the protected services.