Athletics’ Las Vegas Branding Faces Early Hurdle as Trademark Application is Denied
Teh Oakland Athletics’ planned relocation to Las Vegas is facing a potential branding challenge after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected their applications for the trademarks “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” The ruling, issued on December 29, stems from the USPTO’s determination that the phrases are too generic and geographically descriptive to qualify for federal trademark protection, at least initially.
The decision highlights the complexities of trademark law, particularly when dealing with names that combine a location with a common term. According to a legal expert, the USPTO even pointed to the Philadelphia Phillies, noting that “even though the word ‘Philadelphia’ is in there, the Phillies is a vrey unique second word.”
While geographically descriptive trademarks can be registered if the applicant demonstrates “acquired distinctiveness” – meaning consumers strongly associate the phrase with a specific brand – the USPTO concluded that the Athletics have not yet met this standard.The team argued that its long-standing use of the “Athletics” name across multiple cities – Philadelphia (as 1901), Kansas City (1955), and Oakland (1968-2024) – should overcome this hurdle. Though, the USPTO viewed “Las Vegas Athletics” as a legally distinct mark, requiring new evidence of brand recognition.
“As this was technically a different phrase, it’s a brand-new trademark and it needs brand-new evidence,” the attorney stated. “They didn’t have enough evidence to show that they were really pushing on and using that name in the marketplace like they were the other names.”
This ruling raises the question of whether individuals could legally sell merchandise bearing the phrases “Vegas Athletics” or “Las Vegas Athletics.” While the attorney cautioned against such actions, particularly if team logos or colors are used, they acknowledged a potential loophole. “If it literally just said the words ‘Vegas Athletics’ or ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ and it was grey and black, it would be harder for them to police that,” they said. “I’m not saying it’s unfeasible, but it’s arguably a hole in their trademark rights right now.”
The timing of the decision is also significant, as the Athletics have not yet officially relocated to las Vegas. The team is currently playing at Sutter Health Park in West Sacramento for three years, with plans to move into a new $2 billion, 33,000-seat ballpark on the site of the former Tropicana casino hotel in 2028, with a potential one-year extension for construction delays.The team suffered a decisive 18-3 loss to the cubs on Opening Day at Sutter Health Park, as reported by CapRadio.
The attorney also suggested that the Athletics’ intentional decision to brand themselves simply as the “A’s” or “Athletics” during the transition period may have hindered their ability to gather the necessary evidence of marketplace usage. “The minute [the Athletics] move there and start operations they’re going to have all the evidence they need…it’s more of a question of when, not if,” they noted.
Despite the setback, the trademark denial has not gone unnoticed, drawing criticism from baseball fans, particularly given the ongoing controversy surrounding the team’s departure from Oakland. However,trademark challenges are not uncommon,as evidenced by the Las Vegas Raiders’ own legal battles since 2017 regarding trademark “squatters.”
Ultimately, the attorney believes the USPTO’s decision will not derail the Athletics’ relocation plans. “This is not going to stop them from using the name,” they affirmed. “It’s not going to make them have to change the name. This is part of the legal process of getting a trademark registered.” They added that the situation is “probably a very solvable one.”
The Athletics have three months from the December 29 refusal notice to file for an extension and submit a new application to avoid abandonment of the trademark claim.
