Once Again, A’s Denied “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” Trademarks

Trademark Rights Are Grounded in Use (Not Announcements)

At the center of the trademark refusal is a principle that we, trademark attorneys, encounter daily: rights arise from use in commerce, not from publicity, speculation, or anticipated expansion. . A trademark isn’t just paperwork; it’s the legal identity of your brand. Although the Athletics have announced their intention to relocate and have taken steps toward stadium development in Nevada, the USPTO’s inquiry is necessarily narrower. The question is not whether the team will eventually operate in Las Vegas, but whether it is currently using (or has a bona fide and demonstrable intent to use) the applied-for marks in a manner that satisfies Sections 1 and 45 of the Lanham Act.

In examining the applications, the USPTO determined that the Athletics do not presently provide professional baseball services under the names “Las Vegas Athletics” or “Vegas Athletics,” nor have they submitted evidence establishing imminent commercial use tied to those marks. As a result, the applications fail at the threshold level of registrability.

That failure alone would be sufficient to justify refusal. However, the legal problems do not end there.

Is “Las Vegas” Too Geographic To Be a Trademark?

Geographic trademarks face a high bar for approval. The USPTO’s main task is to distinguish between names that merely describe a location and those that serve as a distinctive source indicator for a single company.

In this case, both “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” directly reference a well-known geographic location. When such a location is material to the services offered (here, professional sports entertainment) the USPTO is obligated to consider whether consumers would perceive the mark as descriptive rather than distinctive. To show use in commerce, marketing materials and product packaging are often required as evidence to demonstrate that the mark is actively used in interstate trade.

Geographic descriptiveness alone is not fatal to registration. However, it places the burden squarely on the applicant to demonstrate that the mark has acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. That is where the Athletics’ applications encounter a more structural and difficult obstacle.

Consumer Recognition vs. Fame: The Bar For “Acquired Distinctiveness”

Acquired distinctiveness (also known as “secondary meaning”) happens when the public sees a brand name and thinks of a specific company, rather than just a description of a place or service. This isn’t a theory; it’s a fact-based test. It asks a simple question: When a customer sees the name, do they immediately associate it with this specific business?

For geographic marks, this requirement is especially demanding. The applicant must show that the public associates the geographic term with the applicant’s goods or services, even when the term also describes a location.

In the Athletics’ case, this presents a near-insurmountable challenge. The team has not yet operated in Las Vegas. As a result, consumers cannot have formed an association between professional baseball services rendered in Las Vegas and the “Las Vegas Athletics” name. Without that association, there can be no acquired distinctiveness.

A key takeaway here is that fame in one geographic market doesn’t give the team a shortcut to trademark rights in Las Vegas. While “Athletics” is unquestionably associated with the franchise, the composite marks at issue are very different. The USPTO evaluates the mark as a whole, and the addition of a geographic term fundamentally changes the commercial impression.

Why Prior Fame Is Not Enough For USPTO

Applicants frequently argue that longstanding brand recognition should carry over when a mark is modified. Trademark law, unfortunately, does not support that assumption.

Even highly famous marks must independently establish distinctiveness when paired with descriptive or geographic matter. The fame of the Oakland Athletics brand does not establish that consumers recognize “Las Vegas Athletics” as a source identifier, particularly when the team has never played a game under that name in Las Vegas.

The USPTO’s stance is clear: allowing a trademark based only on reputation would let brands “warehouse” city names. This would undermine the core purpose of trademark law by preventing other local businesses from fairly using geographic terms to describe their own location.

Why “Intent to Use” Can’t Bypass the Need for a Proven Brand

The Athletics filed their applications on an intent-to-use basis – a legal tool that lets businesses claim a name before officially launching. However, having the intent to use a name doesn’t lower the bar for legal requirements. A name must still prove it can actually function as a trademark.

When a name is purely geographic and doesn’t stand out on its own, simply intending to use it isn’t enough to fix the problem. You must show that the brand already has a unique identity or provide clear evidence that it will soon. Future plans, even when highly publicized, do not satisfy this standard.

This distinction is often misunderstood by businesses attempting to secure names early in a relocation or expansion process. Filing too soon can expose the application to refusal on grounds that would not apply once operations are underway.

The Significance of the Repeat Refusal by the USPTO

The fact that the USPTO has denied these applications twice is more than a procedural hiccup. A repeat refusal usually means the examining attorney sees a substantive legal flaw – one that can’t be fixed with a simple edit or a quick clarification.

The same legal hurdles will remain unless there is a material change in the facts. This would require the Athletics to show actual operations in Las Vegas, widespread consumer exposure to the brand, or hard evidence of secondary meaning. Without these changes, refiling the same applications is a loop that risks wasting time, legal fees, and strategic leverage.

Common Law Use Is NOT a Substitute for Federal Registration

It is important to note that the USPTO refusal does not stop the Athletics from using the names “Las Vegas Athletics” or “Vegas Athletics” in commerce. The team may, at some point, adopt those names operationally and rely on common law trademark rights arising from use.

However, common law rights are geographically limited, evidentiary burdens are higher, and enforcement is significantly more complex. For an enterprise operating at a national scale, the absence of federal registration leaves substantial gaps in brand protection.

Competitors, merchandisers, or opportunistic third parties may attempt to register confusingly similar marks, forcing the team into costly opposition or cancellation proceedings. Federal registration is designed to prevent precisely that scenario but only when statutory requirements are met.

Key Takeaways for Brand Owners and Counsels

The Athletics’ trademark setback is a high-profile reminder that trademark law privileges substance over speculation. Geographic branding, while commercially appealing, carries inherent legal risk when deployed prematurely.

Don’t Leave Your Brand To Chance; Align Your Trademark Strategy With Evidence, Not Expectations

The USPTO’s refusal to register “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” is not a rebuke of the team’s relocation plans, nor is it an anomaly. It is a predictable application of settled trademark doctrine concerning use in commerce, geographic descriptiveness, and acquired distinctiveness.

Until the Athletics can demonstrate that consumers associate those marks with a single source of professional baseball services rendered in Las Vegas, federal registration will remain out of reach. For brand owners watching this unfold, the message is unmistakable: trademark protection cannot be secured in advance of reality.

At The Fried Firm, we work with clients to ensure that trademark filings are not only strategic, but legally viable, so that when a brand is ready to expand, its rights expand with it.