The General Court of the EU has confirmed the partial revocation of the Airbnb trademark for 'advertising services' (class 35), finding that a business promoting its own offerings does not constitute an 'advertising service' aimed at third parties – a key legal lesson for branding strategies, as Laetitia Cardi explains.
On 21 May 2025, the General Court of the European Union dismissed an appeal by Airbnb challenging the partial revocation of the Airbnb trademark for "advertising" services under class 35. The judgment confirms the importance of considering which services to designate in a trademark application, distinguishing between those services that will be provided exclusively to third parties and those used solely or in part to promote the products and services offered under the trademark by its owner.
Background to the Airbnb trademark ruling
Airbnb, Inc. has held a European Union trademark (EUTM) since 2013, covering numerous goods and services in several classes, including 'advertising services' in class 35.
In 2020, an Australian company, Airtasker Pty Ltd, applied to have the trademark revoked in its entirety, for lack of genuine use in the EU.
In 2022, the EUIPO Cancellation Division partially declared the Airbnb trademark revoked, in particular for class 35.
The Board of Appeal then partially accepted the appeal filed by Airbnb, Inc. by annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division, but only for certain goods and services.
For the other products and services – and, in particular, the 'advertising services' in class 35 – the revocation was maintained, the Board of Appeal having considered that the evidence provided by the proprietor company did not demonstrate genuine use of the contested mark for these services.
It is in this context that Airbnb, Inc. filed an appeal with the General Court of the EU to annul the decision of the Board of Appeal, arguing that the latter had wrongly equated 'advertising services' with 'services of an advertising company'.
The Court had to examine whether the EUIPO had rightly partially revoked the Airbnb trademark, given the evidence provided by its proprietor to prove genuine use of the trademark.
General court dismisses Airbnb trademark appeal
In its ruling, the Court confirmed the partial revocation of the Airbnb trademark, particularly for advertising services in class 35.
Firstly, the Court approves the definition of advertising services given by the EUIPO, which consists of "providing others with assistance in the sale of their goods and services by promoting their launch and/or sale, or of reinforcing the client's position on the market and enabling them to acquire a competitive advantage through publicity".
It then notes that the evidence provided by Airbnb "does not show that it offers [such] 'advertising' services", but that the services "offered form part of the promotional material for its business activity, namely accommodation and leisure activities which it offers through its platform, and are not an 'advertising' service provided to third parties, in other words to hosts".
For the Court, the promotion of host services is not intended to advertise these services, but to facilitate the sale of the services offered by the company Airbnb, Inc. Since this is an activity incidental to the commercial activity of Airbnb, Inc., the promotion of its own services cannot be classified as the provision of "advertising" services to third parties.
The relevance of a trademark filing in class 35
This judgment confirms that it is not necessary to designate advertising services in a trademark application when the services are not provided exclusively to third parties but, instead, serve solely or in part to promote the products and services offered under the trademark by its owner.
Similarly, a parallel can be drawn regarding retail or wholesale services for products, which are also included in this same class 35, and which must be designated in a trademark application when the owner markets the products of a third party, and not only its own products.
Indeed, since the sale is inherent to the commercial activity and the exploitation of the brand, the designation of the sales services is not necessary.
It is important for future trademark applicants, therefore, to determine which services should be designated in class 35.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
