Strike 1: Trademark Office Refuses Registration for Las Vegas Athletics’ Trademark

As a trademark attorney watching the Athletics’ relocation saga unfold, the recent refusals by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” offer a clean snapshot of how American trademark law treats geographic and descriptive marks — even for century-old brands.

1. Geographic Descriptiveness is a difficult standard.

   The USPTO’s core objection is that the proposed marks are “primarily geographically descriptive.” In practice, this means the mark:
   
   Combines a well-known place name (“Las Vegas”), and a generic sports term (“Athletics”).
   
   When an examiner reads that combination literally, it views the phrase as simply describing a category of athletic activity in a given place, rather than signaling a unique commercial source. Granting exclusive rights could block other legitimate programs in the Las Vegas area, from youth leagues to local clubs, from describing themselves accurately. This type of refusal is textbook for statutory bars under Section 2(e)(2) of the Trademark Act, which prevents protection of geographically descriptive marks without proving acquired distinctiveness.

2. Acquired Distinctiveness Is the Team’s Key Next Step

   The A’s current challenge: they haven’t yet played in Las Vegas and thus can’t show consumers already associate “Las Vegas Athletics” with one specific source, a cornerstone of overcoming geographic descriptiveness.
   In trademark terms, that means proving secondary meaning, through: (i) years of use under the mark; (ii) sales and merchandise under that mark; (iii) Advertising presence in the market; or (iv) consumer surveys or testimony linking the phrase to the team.
   Until the team actually uses the mark in commerce, ideally while playing in Las Vegas, the USPTO will likely see the phrase as merely descriptive and refuse registration.

3. Prior Trademarks Don’t Transfer Automatically

   A common misconception, even among sophisticated clients, is that existing registrations automatically protect new variations of a mark. But trademark law isn’t that straight forward! The A’s have registered “Oakland Athletics,” “Kansas City Athletics,” etc., but each new application must stand on its own. The USPTO treats each filing independently. Contrast this with litigation in court: an adjudicated brand owner might leverage prior use or fame defensively. In the USPTO’s administrative context, though, past approvals don’t guarantee anything.

4. Options After Refusal

A USPTO refusal isn’t game over, it’s just a different inning:

• Submit evidence of acquired distinctiveness with a new filing, especially once the team actually plays in Vegas and sells merchandise there;
• Appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) if the office’s interpretation seems unreasonable; or
• In rare cases, take the fight to federal court, though this is expensive and usually only worth it for major strategic marks.

Bottom Line for Brands:

This isn’t an existential threat to the franchise or its relocation plans, but it is a pragmatic reminder that: (i) geographic marks are hard to protect without use; (ii) generic or descriptive terms need evidence of distinctiveness; (iii) trademark rights aren’t automatic, even for storied brands.

In short: the A’s might be playing ball on the field, but off the field they’re learning trademark law the hard way — one pitch (trademark application) at a time. If you have questions about your brand or are considering attempting to register a trademark, contact the intellectual property attorneys at Gross McGinley for advice and assistance in working through the process with the trademark office.