IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—TTAB: Airbnb’s petition to cancel ‘Complete BNB’ registration denied, confusion unlikely, (Oct 2, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

The TTAB found “the differences between the marks COMPLETE BNB and AIRBNB too great for confusion to be likely.”

The popular Airbnb temporary housing booking company had its petition to cancel the registration of “COMPLETE BNB” denied since confusion between the two marks was unlikely for arranging temporary housing accommodations, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) found in a nonprecedential decision. Even though the TTAB concluded that the services are identical, the AIRBNB mark is distinctive, and survey results showed a finding of a likelihood of confusion, the differences between the marks remained too great for confusion to be likely. The TTAB noted that its analysis centered on the relatedness of the services and the channels of trade, the strength of the AIRBNB mark, the similarity between the marks, and survey results that purported to show a likelihood of confusion (Airbnb, Inc. v. Tillman, No. 92083886 (T.T.A.B. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Alan Tillman (Respondent) owned a Principal Register registration for the mark COMPLETE BNB (standard characters, BNB disclaimed) for Booking of temporary accommodation, Travel agency services, and related services in International Class 43. Airbnb, Inc. (Petitioner) seeks to cancel the involved registration on the ground of priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), based on its mark AIRBNB, the subject of common law use and eight pleaded registrations.

The TTAB began looking at the likelihood of confusion by using an analysis of all the probative facts in evidence relevant to the factors set forth in the DuPont decision (In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361 (CCPA 1973). While some of the factors were met, including services were found identical, and AIRBNB was described as on “the strong side of the distinctiveness spectrum,” not all were. Under DuPont factor one, the TTAB concluded that the dissimilarity of the marks weighed against finding a likelihood of confusion. In explaining its reasoning, the TTAB noted, “we find the marks AIRBNB and COMPLETE BNB have first and dominant terms which differ significantly in appearance, sound, and connotation, and, when combined with the highly descriptive term BNB applied to services involving the reservation of short-term accommodations, including bed-and-breakfasts, create different commercial impressions.” The TTAB disagreed with testimony of a professor who stated that “BNB” largely refers to Airbnb while B&B and B and B are ways of referring to “Bed and Breakfasts.” The TTAB noted, “BNB does not have to be either the exclusive or the most popular short reference to bed-and-breakfast to be descriptive of those services and reservation services for the same.” Also, evidence of a survey was presented to show Airbnb's fame, but the TTAB pointed out that “the survey is four years old” and was also lacking in that it focused exclusively on online platforms.

Examining the seventh DuPont factor, the TTAB looked at whether Airbnb's additional survey, a likelihood of confusion survey, contained circumstantial evidence that was similar to evidence of actual confusion. In the survey, 63 participants out of 200 (31.5%) named Airbnb as the company offering the COMPLETE BNB services for booking or making reservations for temporary lodging and accommodations. The TTAB looked at the details further, such as the comments of individual participants like “Because they are both BNB type places,” (174); “It’s a B&B service”(217); “because of the ‘BnB’ in both of the names and they are both for traveling accommodations”(316); “they all offer the same services, booking homes for short and long term rentals” (450); and “they offer temporary rentals” (923).” The TTAB ultimately determined that it would assess the results differently, and thought it generally unclear whether participants were regarding BNB as a source indicator or the name of the services. However, the survey did present some indirect evidence of actual confusion, according to the TTAB.

In conclusion, in balancing all of the factors, the TTAB denied the petition for cancellation by Airbnb since it determined that a likelihood of confusion had not been established: “Notwithstanding the survey results akin to instances of actual confusion, the use of the parties’ marks on identical services in identical trade channels, and the commercial strength of the AIRBNB mark, we find the term BNB is highly descriptive of the common services, and the differences between the marks COMPLETE BNB and AIRBNB too great for confusion to be likely.”

The Case is Cancellation No. 92083886.

Judge: Dunn, E.

Attorneys: Christopher T. Varas (Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP) for Airbnb, Inc. Alan Tillman, pro se.

Companies: Airbnb, Inc.

Cases: TechnologyInternet Trademark USPTO