A trademark can become enormously valuable as a business grows. A registered trademark is a business asset in its own right, capable of being sold, licensed or transferred, and its commercial value can increase significantly as recognition, reputation and goodwill develop around the brand. For some businesses, the trademark may eventually become one of the most valuable assets they own, which is why established companies invest so heavily in monitoring and protecting their rights.
The difficulty arises when part of a valuable trademark is also made up of language that other businesses have long used descriptively. That is the issue at the centre of an ongoing dispute between Airbnb and bnb-side, a six-room guesthouse on the Isle of Portland in Dorset. Airbnb has opposed applications to register the bnb-side name in the UK, arguing that its use could cause confusion, take unfair advantage of Airbnb’s reputation or suggest a commercial connection between the two businesses.
The central question is therefore not simply whether the two names share similar letters. It is a question about trademark protection for descriptive words, and whether Airbnb’s established rights should extend far enough to prevent another hospitality business from using “bnb” as part of its own name when “BnB” has long been widely understood as shorthand for “bed and breakfast”.
What is bnb-side?
bnb-side was created to help generate income for b-side, an arts festival that has operated in the area for almost 20 years. When the accommodation business launched in 2024, the organisers combined the existing b-side name with “BnB” to reflect the fact that the new venture was a bed and breakfast, creating the name bnb-side.
Airbnb considers that name sufficiently close to its own brand to justify opposing its registration. That turns what might initially appear to be a dispute about three shared letters into a broader question about the boundary between trademark protection and descriptive language.
Why Airbnb is objecting
According to the proceedings reported so far, Airbnb has opposed the bnb-side applications on three principal grounds. It argues that consumers could confuse the two brands, that bnb-side could take unfair advantage of or damage Airbnb’s reputation, and that the name could lead consumers to believe there is some form of commercial connection between the businesses.
Those arguments are familiar in disputes involving well-known brands. Trademark protection is not limited to situations where somebody might literally mistake one business for another; it can also extend to circumstances where consumers may wrongly assume there is an endorsement, licence, partnership or other commercial relationship.
For a brand with the scale and recognition of Airbnb, protecting against that kind of association can be commercially important. The harder question is how far that protection should reach when part of the disputed wording is also commonly used to describe the service being offered.
The problem with “BnB”
The most obvious difficulty for Airbnb is the meaning of the letters themselves. “BnB” has long been used as shorthand for “bed and breakfast”, and the bnb-side team says that is exactly why the term was incorporated into its name. In their case, it is not being used arbitrarily; it describes the nature of the accommodation business.
Trademark law has to strike a balance between protecting distinctive signs and ensuring that ordinary descriptive language remains available for businesses to use. A company may have a strong trademark that includes descriptive material, but that does not necessarily mean it acquires exclusive rights over that descriptive element in every context.
That distinction matters because businesses need to be able to explain what they do. If ordinary descriptive expressions became unavailable simply because they appeared within a famous brand, competitors could find themselves restricted from using language that consumers already understand as describing a category of goods or services.
Does a strong reputation increase the scope of trademark protection?
Potentially, yes. The reputation and distinctiveness attached to an earlier trademark can be highly relevant when assessing the protection it should receive, and a mark known by millions of consumers is in a very different commercial position from one that has only recently entered the market.
That is one reason major brands invest so heavily in enforcement. If similar names are allowed to accumulate around a successful brand, the distinctiveness of that brand can weaken over time, so there is nothing unusual about a well-known company running trademark monitoring across new applications and challenging names it considers too close.
However, a strong reputation does not automatically give the owner exclusive rights over every word, letter or descriptive element appearing within the mark. The issue becomes particularly sensitive where the disputed element also has an ordinary descriptive meaning outside the brand itself.
Association is not always the same as confusion
There is also an important distinction between a name reminding somebody of another brand and that person actually believing the businesses are connected.
Seeing the name bnb-side might make some consumers think of Airbnb. That does not automatically mean they would believe Airbnb owns the guesthouse, endorses it or has some commercial relationship with it. Trademark law is concerned with commercial origin, so the relevant question is not simply whether one name brings another brand to mind, but whether the similarity is capable of creating the kind of confusion or perceived connection recognised by trademark law.
This distinction often becomes central in trademark disputes. Two names can create an association without necessarily misleading consumers about who is responsible for the goods or services being offered.
The eventual outcome in this dispute will depend on how the UK Intellectual Property Office assesses the marks, the evidence and the legal grounds relied upon. No final ruling has yet been made.
Why the dispute matters to the smaller business
For bnb-side, the consequences are not limited to the trademark application itself. The organisation says that losing the name would mean replacing signage, rewriting its website and social media, changing marketing materials and rebuilding the recognition it has already created around the business.
There is also a significant financial dimension. bnb-side reportedly now generates almost half of the festival’s £250,000 annual turnover, meaning the dispute has a direct connection to the financial sustainability of the organisation it was created to support.
This is one reason trademark disputes can become expensive long before they reach a final hearing or court. Once a business has invested in a name through signage, marketing, websites, social media and customer recognition, changing it can carry a much greater cost than the original trademark application.
What can other businesses learn from the dispute?
There are useful lessons on both sides.
For established brand owners, trademark protection does not end when a registration certificate is issued. Monitoring new applications and market activity forms part of protecting the reputation, distinctiveness and commercial value that has accumulated around the brand.
For businesses choosing new names, the lesson is equally important. A proposed name does not have to be identical to an existing trademark to create a potential problem, which is why a trademark clearance search for earlier rights matters before significant money is invested in branding, websites, signage or advertising. A free trademark search is a sensible first look.
At the same time, the presence of a famous brand does not necessarily mean every remotely similar word is unavailable. The strength of the earlier trademark, the similarity between the marks, the services involved and the descriptive meaning of particular elements can all influence the outcome.
Where should the line be drawn?
There is a genuine tension at the centre of the Airbnb and bnb-side dispute.
Airbnb has built an extraordinarily valuable brand, and its trademarks are commercial assets that it is entitled to protect. At the same time, the value of a trademark does not automatically give its owner exclusive control over ordinary language simply because part of that language also appears within the brand.
Trademark law therefore has to do two things at once: protect the value businesses have created while preserving enough freedom for everyone else to describe what they do. That is the balance at the heart of trademark protection for descriptive words, and it is rarely a clean line.
The UKIPO will ultimately have to decide where bnb-side falls on that line.
For everyone else, there is a simpler question:
If you saw a guesthouse called “bnb-side”, would you assume it had any connection with Airbnb?
Thinking about a new name?
If you are choosing a brand name, or you have had an objection raised against one, it is worth checking the position before you commit. Run a free trademark search, or if something comes back that you are not sure about, book a free 15-minute call or call us on 0161 833 5400 and we will tell you honestly whether it is a problem.
The dispute between Airbnb and bnb-side remains unresolved at the time of writing. This article is commentary on the issues it raises rather than a prediction of the UKIPO’s final decision, and it is for information purposes only. It does not constitute trademark advice or guidance.
