IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Airbnb’s opposition to SOUL BNB mark for health spa services dismissed, (Feb 6, 2026)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

In the Board’s view, confusion was unlikely because the differences between the marks in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression outweighed the minimal amount of similarity created by the shared term BNB.

In a nonprecedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found no likelihood of confusion and dismissed Airbnb, Inc.’s opposition to registration of the standard character mark SOUL BNB. The TTAB concluded that the opposer failed to satisfy its burden to show that confusion as to source is likely (Airbnb, Inc. v. Soul BnB LLC, No. 91288785 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2026)).

Background. Soul BnB LLC (applicant) filed an application seeking registration on the Principal Register of the standard character mark SOUL BNB for “health spa services for health and wellness of the mind, body and spirit offered in or from a remote, mobile or temporary on-site location,” in International Class 44. Airbnb, Inc. (opposer) opposed the registration of the applicant’s mark on the ground of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act based on its ownership of eight pleaded registrations for the standard character mark AIRBNB, for various goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, 36, 39, 42, 43, and 45.

Entitlement to a statutory cause of action. The opposer submitted printouts from USPTO records showing the current status and title of the opposer’s pleaded registrations demonstrating both an interest falling within the zone of interests protected by the Trademark Act and a reasonable belief in damage proximately caused by the registration of the applicant’s mark. Thus, the opposer demonstrated a statutory entitlement to oppose.

Priority. The TTAB found that because the opposer’s valid and subsisting registration are properly of record and the applicant has not counterclaimed to cancel them, priority is not an issue for the opposer’s claimed mark and the goods and services identified in the registrations.

Likelihood of confusion claim. The TTAB noted that the opposer pleaded ownership of eight prior registrations but the arguments rely mainly on Registration No. 3890025, Registration No. 3890027, Registration No. 4329542, and Registration No. 4884815. Therefore, although the opposer pleaded ownership of several registrations, the TTAB will focus its likelihood of confusion determination on these particular registrations and services, as they are the most relevant to our Section 2(d) analysis.

Under the first DuPont factor, the TTAB compared the opposer’s mark AIRBNB with the applicant’s mark SOUL BNB, both in standard characters and noted that both marks consist of a term (SOUL or AIR) combined with, or followed by, the term BNB.

The TTAB disagreed with the opposer that BNB is the dominant element in the applicant’s mark or, for that matter, the opposer’s mark. The TTAB determined that AIR and SOUL are the dominant elements in the respective marks because they are each more distinctive than BNB. The TTAB noted that when used in connection with bed-and-breakfast services, BNB is likely to be perceived as highly suggestive, if not descriptive. Further, the TTAB found the marks AIRBNB and SOUL BNB have first and dominant terms which differ significantly in appearance, sound, and connotation. That is, AIRBNB might bring to mind light and easy accommodations for travel, or allude to the opposer’s origins, while SOUL BNB might connote services intended for a person’s spiritual or emotional health, which may take place in comfortable, but temporary, locations. The TTAB concluded that the relevant consumers are likely to differentiate between the two marks, regardless of the single point of similarity provided by the shared term BNB, because the marks otherwise feature completely different dominant terms, AIR and SOUL, resulting in significant overall differences in sound, appearance, and commercial impression. Therefore, the first DuPont factor weighed heavily against a conclusion that confusion is likely.

However, the TTAB found that the second DuPont factor weighed in favor of a likelihood of confusion because the consumers may perceive the respective services as related based on their nature and how they are offered to, and used by, consumers in the marketplace.

Additionally, the opposer’s evidence of record, particularly the listings for third-party services on the opposer’s online marketplace, supported a finding that the respective services are encountered by the same classes of consumers in the same channels of trade. The evidence indicated that consumers seeking accommodations and travel information may also seek to book experiences, including “wellness activities” and “spa or spa-like” services, to complement their trip. In other words, those making travel arrangements, including reservations for temporary accommodations, may also seek health spa services for wellness, and they may do so through the same channels of trade, including an online marketplace. Consequently, the third DuPont factor also weighed in favor of finding a likelihood of confusion.

The TTAB found that the opposer did not prove that its AIRBNB mark falls on the strongest end of the strength spectrum for likelihood of confusion purposes. That said, it does place at the higher end of the commercial strength spectrum, and is thus entitled to a broader scope of protection against confusingly similar marks. Thus, the fifth DuPont factor weighed in favour of a likelihood of confusion. However, the TTAB found the sixth DuPont factor neutral.

Additionally, in view the flawed question in the opposer's likelihood of confusion survey based on an inaccurate description of the applicant’s services, as well as the ambiguity of some of the survey responses, the TTAB found that the survey falls short of the opposer’s claim that it shows a “significant likelihood of confusion” between the marks. Nevertheless, the TTAB noted that the survey did provide some indirect evidence of actual confusion on the part of some consumers. Thus, while the opposer overstated the probative value of the survey, the TTAB found that the seventh DuPont factor weighed slightly in favor of a conclusion that confusion is likely.

The TTAB noted that any of the DuPont factors may play a dominant role. Here, the first DuPont factor is dispositive, because the differences between the marks in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression outweigh the minimal amount of similarity created by the shared term BNB. Therefore, although BNB is common to the parties’ marks, this shared element is unlikely to lead consumers to mistakenly believe that the overall marks, AIRBNB and SOUL BNB, identify the same source when used in connection with the parties’ respective services. Therefore, the opposer failed to satisfy its burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that confusion as to source is likely.

Accordingly, the TTAB dismissed the opposition.

The case is Opposition No. 91288785.

Judge: Lavache, R.

Attorneys: Christopher T. Varas and Jennifer Fairbairn Deal (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP) for Airbnb, Inc.

Companies: Airbnb, Inc.; Soul BnB LLC

Cases: Trademark USPTO