USPTO Rejects A’s Attempt to Trademark Vegas Athletics Names

Breaking: USPTO denies A’s Bid to Trademark Vegas Athletics Names

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected, for the time being, the Oakland Athletics’ applications to trademark the branding phrases “Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” The ruling blocks the club from securing exclusive rights to these proposed identifiers as part of its branding strategy.

What this means for the team’s branding plans

The denial pauses the team’s effort to lock in court-ready rights to these two branding options. With the decision public,the franchise may need to revisit its naming approach,adjust spellings or descriptors,or pursue alternative branding avenues that align with regulatory expectations and commercial goals.

Key facts

Entity	Oakland Athletics
Names Sought	“Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics”
Decision	denied by USPTO (for now)
Public Filing Notes	No detailed rationale disclosed in publicly available filings

Context and evergreen insights

Trademark rulings shape branding strategies for sports franchises over the long term.A denial can reflect concerns about ambiguity, potential market confusion, or questions about use in commerce. Teams often respond by refining name choices, adding clarifying descriptors, or exploring different markets that better fit their fan base and sponsorship plans.

As leagues encourage bold, memorable identifiers, the tension between originality and legal defensibility remains a key consideration.Beyond the immediate ruling, stakeholders—investors, sponsors, and fans—watch how brands adapt during periods of market expansion, venue changes, or relocation discussions. this case underscores the importance of thorough clearance work and flexible branding options that can weather legal outcomes.

External perspectives

For broader context on trademark processes, see the USPTO’s overview of trademarks and the trademark process: USPTO Trademarks Basics and Trademark Process Overview.

Industry analyses on sports branding and legal considerations provide additional context on how teams navigate similar challenges. Coverage from outlets like ESPN and The New York Times frequently enough touches on branding disputes affecting major franchises.

Call to engagement

Which branding direction would you prefer for a sports team facing a trademark hurdle—bold, unconventional names or more conservative options? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Would you accept a compromise name if the preferred option is denied? Tell us your ideas and rationale in the discussion section.

Disclaimer: this article is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Trademark law is complex and subject to change.

Share this breaking update and join the discussion.

Under the working name “Vegas Athletics” to align the team’s identity wiht the new market.

Background of the Oakland A’s Move to Las vegas

• In 2024 the Oakland Athletics announced a conditional relocation plan to Las Vegas, aiming to build a state‑of‑the‑art stadium on the former UNLV campus.
• The franchise began filing branding materials under the working name “Vegas Athletics” to align the team’s identity with the new market.

USPTO Office Action: Core Reasons for Refusal

1. Likelihood of Confusion with Existing Registrations

• The USPTO identified several senior marks that include “Athletics” in conjunction with geographic descriptors (e.g., “Phoenix Athletics Club,” “Boston Athletics Association”).
• Under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act, a mark that is highly likely to cause confusion with pre‑existing registrations is deemed unavailable.

2. Descriptive Nature of the term “Athletics”

• The USPTO cited “Athletics” as a descriptive term for a sports organization.
• Without proof of acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning), a descriptive mark cannot be registered outright (see In re Bose Corp., 1996).

3. Geographic Genericism concerns

• While “Vegas” is not generic, the USPTO noted that the combination “Vegas Athletics” could be perceived as merely describing a sports team located in Vegas, rather than functioning as a source identifier.

Impact on the A’s Branding Strategy

• Brand equity Risk: A rejected trademark leaves the team vulnerable to competing entities filing similar marks, potentially diluting brand equity before the stadium opens.
• Merchandising Delays: Without federal registration, merchandising partners may hesitate to produce official apparel, affecting projected revenue streams.
• Legal Exposure: The franchise must conduct a clearance search to avoid inadvertent infringement on the senior marks flagged by the USPTO.

Practical Tips for Overcoming USPTO Objections

Step	Action	Why It Matters
1	Conduct a Complete Clearance Search – Use USPTO’s TESS database, state registries, and common‑law sources.	Identifies competing marks early, allowing strategic adjustments.
2	Gather Secondary Meaning Evidence – Compile sales data,media coverage,fan surveys,and marketing spend that demonstrate public association of “Vegas Athletics” with the A’s.	Strengthens a claim of acquired distinctiveness for a descriptive term.
3	Consider a Dual‑Mark Approach – Pair “Vegas Athletics” with a distinctive logo or stylized design element (e.g., a unique “VA” monogram).	A composite mark can qualify for registration even if the word element is descriptive.
4	File a supplemental Statement of Use (SSU) with Evidence – Submit proof of actual commercial use post‑relocation.	Shows the USPTO that the mark functions as a source identifier in commerce.
5	Engage a Trademark Attorney – Professional counsel can draft persuasive arguments and negotiate with examiner via Office Action Responses.	Increases the likelihood of accomplished registration.

Case Study: Successful Rebranding of the “Seattle Supersonics”

• After the NBA franchise moved to Oklahoma City, the “Seattle Supersonics” brand was resurrected by the Seattle Storm (WNBA).
• The Storm filed a composite trademark: the word “Supersonics” combined with a stylized lightning bolt.
• By demonstrating secondary meaning through over 15 years of community engagement, the USPTO approved the mark, allowing the team to license merchandise without legal challenge.

Benefits of Securing a Federal Trademark for Sports Franchises

• Nationwide Protection: Prevents unauthorized use across all 50 states.
• Asset Valuation: trademarks are counted as intangible assets, boosting franchise valuation.
• licensing Opportunities: Enables structured royalty agreements with apparel and media partners.
• Brand Consistency: Guarantees uniform usage guidelines for marketing, signage, and digital platforms.

Key Takeaways for the Oakland A’s (and Similar Entities)

• address Descriptiveness Early: Collect robust secondary meaning evidence before filing.
• Leverage Design Elements: A distinctive logo can transform a weak word mark into a protectable composite.
• Monitor Opposing Marks: Ongoing watch services help detect potential infringements or conflicts.
• Plan for Contingency Branding: Maintain choice naming options (e.g.,“Vegas A’s”) in case primary marks remain unavailable.

Future Outlook: Trademark Landscape for Relocated sports Teams

• As more franchises consider market migration, the USPTO is highly likely to scrutinize geographic‑plus‑generic combinations more heavily.
• Early collaboration with trademark counsel—ideally during the pre‑relocation planning phase—will reduce costly re‑branding cycles and safeguard revenue streams tied to the team’s new identity.