The USPTO Says “No” to LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS
The USPTO issued a non-final refusal of the trademarks LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS for clothing, footwear, entertainment and other purposes, finding them “primarily geographically descriptive.” Because the team is not yet playing in Las Vegas, it cannot currently prove its acquired distinctiveness. This does not stop the Athletics from using the name or moving to Las Vegas, and the refusal will likely be overcome once sufficient marketplace evidence exists.
If you’re relocating your business, changing your branding, or say, moving a 125-year-old Major League Baseball franchise across state lines, trademarks don’t automatically pack their bags and come with you.
Just ask the Athletics
As part of their move from Oakland to Las Vegas, the A’s applied to register LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS. On December 29, 2025, the USPTO refused registration in the form of a non-final office action, concluding that both marks are primarily geographically descriptive and therefore not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
Why the USPTO Cried Foul
Trademark law bars registration of marks that primarily describe where goods or services come from. According to the USPTO, “Las Vegas” is a well-known geographic location, and “Athletics” merely describes athletic services and products. USPTO defined “athletics” as “activities such as sports, exercises, and games that require physical skill and stamina.” Together, the terms describe a baseball team located in Las Vegas, rather than functioning as a distinctive identifier of a single source, found the USPTO.
“But We’ve Been the Athletics Since 1901!”
Attempting to overcome the USPTO refusal, the team argued that it owns prior trademark registrations containing the word “Athletics,” including PHILADELPHIA ATHLETICS, KANSAS CITY ATHLETICS, OAKLAND ATHLETICS, and a stylized Athletics logo. The A’s played in Philadelphia from 1901 to 1954 and in Kansas City from 1955 to 1967.
The USPTO rejected that argument, emphasizing that each trademark application is examined on its own merits, and prior registrations do not guarantee approval of a new, geographically distinct mark.
The Timing Problem
The Athletics are not yet playing in Las Vegas. They are set to move from West Sacramento, Calif., to Las Vegas in 2028 (once their new stadium is built), and currently lack sufficient evidence that consumers associate LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS with a single source. Without sales, advertising, and consumer recognition tied specifically to Las Vegas, the USPTO found that acquired distinctiveness has not yet been established.
Is This a Shut Out?
Not really. This is a non-final refusal. The team can and undoubtedly will respond, submit additional evidence, amend its application, or eventually refile once it begins playing in Las Vegas. Meanwhile, the refusal does not stop use of the name or the relocation – the A’s are in no way obligated to drop the name Las Vegas Athletics because the USPTO has not yet approved registration, and the team may still rely on common-law rights and other forms of intellectual property protection in the interim.
A Takeaway
Adding geographic terms often weakens trademark protection. Organizations relocating or expanding, or those that may not have registered all of their marks, should consider trademark strategy early, particularly where a brand includes geographic terms. The Greenspoon Marder LLP trademark team provides guidance and counsel on acquiring federal trademark registration and is available to assist.
