Why the A’s Hit a Legal Snag Trademarking Their Las Vegas Name

The Athletics are facing a curveball over their new name as they prepare to move to Las Vegas—efforts to trademark “Las Vegas Athletics” have thus far been denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

On Dec. 29, the USPTO issued a second refusal of trademark applications to register “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” Experts say the refusal doesn’t threaten the team’s relocation plans, but it highlights a quirk of U.S. trademark law: Even one of Major League Baseball’s most storied franchises can’t automatically carry brand protections with it when it moves cities.

Representatives for MLB and the A’s declined to comment, but two sources familiar with the matter tell Front Office Sports that MLB handles trademark applications for all 30 teams.

Trademark attorney Josh Gerben explained in a blog post that the USPTO denied the A’s application because it determined that “Las Vegas Athletics” is “primarily geographically descriptive,” meaning the name combines a well-known place name with a generic sports term. Granting exclusive rights to the phrase could prevent other legitimate athletic organizations in Las Vegas from using common language to describe their activities, according to the USPTO.

“The examiner is taking this very literally,” Gerben tells FOS. “The USPTO is basically saying ‘if we give the team unfettered rights, then any youth or amateur athletics association in Las Vegas could suddenly be in violation of the trademark.’ It’s a weird result.”

It might be weird, but experts say the refusal is hardly extraordinary.

Part of the A’s problem is that they aren’t yet playing in Las Vegas. The team is playing in Sacramento while its new stadium is being built, and the A’s aren’t expected to take a swing in Las Vegas until 2028. Because of that, the team has not been able to prove to the USPTO that consumers already associate “Las Vegas Athletics” with a single source—one of the key requirements for overcoming a refusal based on geographic descriptiveness. In trademark law, it’s known as “acquired distinctiveness” when a phrase becomes legally protectable because consumers have come to associate it with a single source.

In filings with the USPTO, the A’s have attempted to bridge that gap by pointing to their long history as the Athletics, including prior trademark registrations for “Oakland Athletics,” “Philadelphia Athletics,” and “Kansas City Athletics.” But Gerben says trying to register trademarks is not like fighting a case in state or federal court, where precedent from other cases can help a party’s cause; in front of the USPTO, each application is judged on its own merits, and prior approvals don’t guarantee a new mark will be accepted.

“They don’t get the benefit of the Oakland Athletics trademark,” Gerben tells FOS. “It doesn’t just transfer that way.”

Trademark attorney Carissa Weiss says the team’s relocation has complicated matters. 

“The problem the team has here is that the move to Las Vegas is a new development, so they likely don’t have sufficient use to claim acquired distinctiveness in the full mark ‘Las Vegas Athletics,’” Weiss tells FOS.

That doesn’t mean the door is closed. Because the refusal is non-final, the A’s will have another chance to respond.

Trademark law expert and Northeastern University law and media professor Alexandra Roberts says their next argument could be to assert “acquired distinctiveness.” That would involve showing the USPTO that consumers recognize “Las Vegas Athletics” as identifying a specific team rather than just a descriptive phrase. Evidence of acquired distinctiveness can include the length and manner of use, merchandise or ticket sales under the mark, advertising spend, third-party coverage such as news articles, and survey or consumer testimony demonstrating public recognition. 

“If the applicant goes back to the USPTO after it starts using the mark and provides evidence of widespread use and sales, extensive advertising and news coverage, and consumer recognition, it will be able to secure the registration,” Roberts tells FOS.

Even if the team ultimately gets rejected again by the USPTO, it could still appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. And if it were to lose there, it could take its case to federal court.

“They could appeal all the way to the Supreme Court,” Gerben says. He points to a U.S. Supreme Court case from 2020 that saw Booking.com win the right to register its name as a trademark, despite the USPTO’s argument that its name was too generic.

“That’s expensive, though, and would take a lot of time,” Gerben tells FOS. “The path of least resistance is to keep these applications active until they start playing in Vegas or can prove the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use and consumer recognition.”