Los Angeles (United States) (AFP) – The Athletics baseball franchise failed in its attempt to register “Las Vegas Athletics” as a new trademark ahead of its planned move to the American gaming capital.
First modification: Last modification:
2 min Reading time
In a new setback for a Major League team, which controversially left its historic headquarters in Oakland, California, in 2024, and is still awaiting construction of its new stadium, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that the term is not distinctive enough to be registered.
In its rejection, filed last month, the USPTO noted that the term “athletics” is limited to describing “the purpose and characteristics of the applicant’s goods and services” and that, therefore, the name “Las Vegas Athletics” is “primarily geographically descriptive.”
The decision could have significant consequences for the franchise in combating the sale of counterfeit merchandise or other uses by third parties. However, the A’s can still respond to the observation – which is not final – or file a legal appeal.
Founded in 1901 in Philadelphia, the team had already moved twice, first to Kansas City and then to Oakland, before this new relocation.
The Athletics leadership opted to move the franchise to Las Vegas after failing to reach an agreement to build a new stadium in Oakland, and obtained approval from Major League Baseball in 2023.
The historic Tropicana hotel and casino in Las Vegas has already been demolished to make way for the future baseball stadium. Meanwhile, the team plays its home games in a temporary minor league stadium in Sacramento, the capital of the state of California.
Despite having successfully registered the Oakland Athletics and Kansas City Athletics trademarks in the past, the USPTO determined that “claiming ownership of a prior current registration” is not sufficient, as each application must be evaluated independently.
“The burden of demonstrating acquired distinctiveness is proportionally high and requires more evidence,” the agency indicated.
In a blog post, trademark attorney Josh Gerben called the case “unusual, almost bizarre, for an MLB franchise.”
However, he explained that, having not yet begun to compete under its new name or in its new city, the club cannot provide “market evidence, such as sales figures, advertising investment, media recognition or consumer perception”, elements that normally allow an objection due to descriptive nature to be overcome.
“That puts the organization in a classic scenario of being between a rock and a hard place,” he concluded.
© 2026 AFP
