EU Court upholds partial revocation of Airbnb’s EUTM

Background

In  T-1032/23 Airbnb v EUIPO - Airtasker (AIRBNB) Airtasker Pty Ltd applied to revoke Airbnb Inc.’s EUTM registration for AIRBNB under Article 58(1)(a) of Regulation 2017/1001, which allows for the revocation of a registration that has not been put to genuine use in the EU in the preceding five years.

The Cancellation Division partially revoked Airbnb's registration, which covered a wide range of goods and services. Both parties appealed: Airtasker's appeal (Case R 885/2022-2) challenged the partial refusal of the revocation action and Airbnb's appeal (Case R 894/2022-2) challenged the decision insofar as it upheld Airtasker's application.  

The Board of Appeal dismissed Airtasker's appeal in its entirety and upheld Airbnb's appeal in part. It held that the AIRBNB mark should remain registered for certain goods and services in the subcategory "… in relation to temporary accommodation [lodging] and leisure activities" and upheld the revocation in relation to certain goods and services outside of this subcategory, such as "advertising" and "providing information in the fields of travel".

Appeal to the General Court

Airbnb appealed to the General Court. Airbnb's plea was divided into six parts:

1. The mark had been used for certain goods and services outside the subcategory created by the Board "… in relation to temporary accommodation [lodging] and leisure activities";
2. Airbnb's legitimate interest in expanding its business by enjoying the protection conferred by its trade mark registration was unjustifiably limited;
3. The term "advertising" was erroneously equated with "services of an advertising company";
4. The Board incorrectly held that Airbnb had not genuinely used the mark in connection with "providing, organising, and arranging cleaning services";
5.  The Board misinterpreted the word ‘"travel" within "providing information in the field of travel"; and
6. the Board incorrectly held that Airbnb had not put that mark to genuine use in connection with "social and collaborative travel", "education; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities services; social and collaborative entertainment services" and "social and collaborative lodging and dining".

Decision

Parts one, two and five

Airbnb argued that the subcategory "… in relation to temporary accommodation [lodging] and leisure activities" was too narrow in light of consumer perception and its future business plans. The Court noted that the Board found that “leisure activities” encompasses "leisure, education, entertainment, cultural experiences, and excursions", which Airbnb did not dispute, and that such activities are not limited to travel. The Court emphasised that the interests of proprietors of trade marks registered for wide specifications for which no genuine use has been shown cannot outweigh their competitors’ interests in registering their marks for those goods or services.

Airbnb argued that "travel" encompasses transport, accommodation and things to do and see, referring to the definition of "travel" in Directive (EU) 2015/2302. The Court held that goods and services must be interpreted coherently in accordance with the Nice Classification rather than other rules of EU law.  Ultimately, the Court held that Airbnb had not demonstrated genuine use in relation to "providing information in the field of travel".

Part three

The Board held that Airbnb had not shown genuine use of its mark for "advertising". Airbnb argued that the Board erroneously equated "advertising services" and "services … of advertising companies" and that the evidence it provided showed that it advertises services offered by its hosts.

The Court held that Airbnb's argument was based on a truncated reading of the decision and held that the Board's decision was based on the evidence provided by Airbnb. The Court further held that Airbnb’s promotion of its hosts' services was inherently part of its own business operations and did not amount to providing advertising services to third parties.

Part four

The Board held that Airbnb had not demonstrated genuine use for “providing, organising, and arranging cleaning services.” Airbnb acknowledged that it does not directly offer cleaning services but argued that it enables hosts to offer such services and processes related fees through its platform.

The Court held that although Airbnb's mark was displayed on invoices that displayed fees for cleaning services provided by third parties, this did not demonstrate that Airbnb itself provided or arranged those services. Customers would see the invoices and identify Airbnb as the platform for processing payments, not the provider of cleaning services. The Court also held that merely offering hosts the option to provide cleaning services and processing payments did not equate to organising or arranging those services.

Part six

The Board dismissed Airbnb's claim that its mark was genuinely used for "social and collaborative travel", "education; entertainment; sporting and cultural activities services; social and collaborative entertainment services" and "social and collaborative lodging and dining". As with clearing services it found that Airbnb merely provided the platform through which consumers booked these services, but that the hosts provide those services.

Comment

The decision reinforces that trade mark registrations must reflect commercial reality. Brand owners should consider how they are using their marks to ensure they can provide strong evidence that their marks are used as an indicator of origin for all the goods and services offered. The decision also shows that is not sufficient to use a mark only in relation a subcategory of a wider range of goods and services, as courts may scrutinise whether each specific item has genuinely been provided. The decision is also a reminder to brand owners that enforcing registrations older than five years carries the risk of retaliatory revocation actions.

A version of this article first appeared in WTR Daily, part of World Trademark Review, in June 2025. For further information, please go to www.worldtrademarkreview.com.