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 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.
Why the USPTO Cried Foul
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.
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. The 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, California, to Las Vegas in 2028 once their new stadium is built. For now, they 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 Shutout?
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.
More Sports Law and Business Coverage from SportsEpreneur
SportsEpreneur covers the legal, business, and policy shifts shaping the sports industry — from NIL governance and college sports enforcement to franchise relocation, intellectual property, athlete branding, and media rights.
Continue reading:
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the USPTO refuse “Las Vegas Athletics”?
The USPTO found that LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS are primarily geographically descriptive. In other words, the marks describe a team connected to Las Vegas rather than functioning, at least for now, as distinctive brand identifiers on the Principal Register.
Does the refusal mean the Athletics cannot use the name?
No. The refusal does not stop the Athletics from using the name Las Vegas Athletics or moving to Las Vegas. It only means the USPTO has not approved federal registration of those marks on the Principal Register at this stage.
What does “primarily geographically descriptive” mean?
A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when consumers would understand it mainly as describing where goods or services come from. Here, the USPTO viewed “Las Vegas” as a geographic location and “Athletics” as descriptive of athletic services and products.
Why does timing matter for the Athletics?
The Athletics are not yet playing in Las Vegas. Because of that, the team does not currently have enough marketplace evidence showing that consumers associate LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS with one specific source. Once the team plays in Las Vegas and builds stronger consumer recognition, it may have a better case for acquired distinctiveness.
Can the Athletics overcome the refusal?
Yes. This was a non-final refusal. The Athletics can respond to the USPTO, submit additional evidence, amend the application, or refile later once the Las Vegas brand has more marketplace recognition.
What is acquired distinctiveness?
Acquired distinctiveness means that a descriptive mark has become strongly associated with a single source in the minds of consumers. For example, a geographic team name may become protectable if the public comes to recognize it as identifying one specific organization rather than simply describing a location.
What is the lesson for sports teams and businesses?
Brands that include geographic terms can face trademark challenges, especially during relocation or expansion. Teams, leagues, and businesses should think about trademark strategy early, particularly when a new brand depends heavily on a city, region, or location name.
About the Author
Bruce B. Siegal, Esq. is a sports and entertainment attorney at Greenspoon Marder LLP, where his practice focuses on NIL, collegiate intellectual property, trademark protection, and licensing. Before entering private practice, Bruce served for more than 31 years as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), where he helped found CAPS — the trademark protection alliance with the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgia Tech, teaching Sports Law and Public Policy with a focus on NIL rights.
Connect with Bruce: Greenspoon Marder profile | [email protected]
This article was originally published on January 9, 2026, by Greenspoon Marder LLP as “What Happens in Vegas…Apparently Can’t Reach the Principal Trademark Register, At Least For Now” and is republished on SportsEpreneur with permission from the author. The original article text is the property of Greenspoon Marder LLP, all rights reserved. Editorial framing, summary, FAQ, and supplementary content added by SportsEpreneur.
Why the USPTO Said “No” to the Las Vegas Athletics — At Least For Now
By Bruce B. Siegal, Esq. — Greenspoon Marder LLP
Originally published January 9, 2026, by Greenspoon Marder LLP. Republished on SportsEpreneur with permission.
Bruce B. Siegal, Esq. — a 31-year sports IP veteran and former General Counsel of the Collegiate Licensing Company. Bruce’s breakdown of the USPTO’s refusal of “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” shows how sports branding, franchise relocation, geography, and trademark law can collide in ways that are easy to misunderstand.
The short version: the refusal does not stop the Athletics from using the name or moving to Las Vegas. But it does show why geographic team names can create trademark-registration issues before a team has built enough marketplace recognition in its new location.
TL;DR
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 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.
Why the USPTO Cried Foul
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.
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. The 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, California, to Las Vegas in 2028 once their new stadium is built. For now, they 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 Shutout?
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.
More Sports Law and Business Coverage from SportsEpreneur
SportsEpreneur covers the legal, business, and policy shifts shaping the sports industry — from NIL governance and college sports enforcement to franchise relocation, intellectual property, athlete branding, and media rights.
Continue reading:
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the USPTO refuse “Las Vegas Athletics”?
The USPTO found that LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS are primarily geographically descriptive. In other words, the marks describe a team connected to Las Vegas rather than functioning, at least for now, as distinctive brand identifiers on the Principal Register.
Does the refusal mean the Athletics cannot use the name?
No. The refusal does not stop the Athletics from using the name Las Vegas Athletics or moving to Las Vegas. It only means the USPTO has not approved federal registration of those marks on the Principal Register at this stage.
What does “primarily geographically descriptive” mean?
A mark is primarily geographically descriptive when consumers would understand it mainly as describing where goods or services come from. Here, the USPTO viewed “Las Vegas” as a geographic location and “Athletics” as descriptive of athletic services and products.
Why does timing matter for the Athletics?
The Athletics are not yet playing in Las Vegas. Because of that, the team does not currently have enough marketplace evidence showing that consumers associate LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS with one specific source. Once the team plays in Las Vegas and builds stronger consumer recognition, it may have a better case for acquired distinctiveness.
Can the Athletics overcome the refusal?
Yes. This was a non-final refusal. The Athletics can respond to the USPTO, submit additional evidence, amend the application, or refile later once the Las Vegas brand has more marketplace recognition.
What is acquired distinctiveness?
Acquired distinctiveness means that a descriptive mark has become strongly associated with a single source in the minds of consumers. For example, a geographic team name may become protectable if the public comes to recognize it as identifying one specific organization rather than simply describing a location.
What is the lesson for sports teams and businesses?
Brands that include geographic terms can face trademark challenges, especially during relocation or expansion. Teams, leagues, and businesses should think about trademark strategy early, particularly when a new brand depends heavily on a city, region, or location name.
About the Author
Bruce B. Siegal, Esq. is a sports and entertainment attorney at Greenspoon Marder LLP, where his practice focuses on NIL, collegiate intellectual property, trademark protection, and licensing. Before entering private practice, Bruce served for more than 31 years as Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), where he helped found CAPS — the trademark protection alliance with the NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. He is also an Adjunct Professor at Georgia Tech, teaching Sports Law and Public Policy with a focus on NIL rights.
Connect with Bruce: Greenspoon Marder profile | [email protected]
This article was originally published on January 9, 2026, by Greenspoon Marder LLP as “What Happens in Vegas…Apparently Can’t Reach the Principal Trademark Register, At Least For Now” and is republished on SportsEpreneur with permission from the author. The original article text is the property of Greenspoon Marder LLP, all rights reserved. Editorial framing, summary, FAQ, and supplementary content added by SportsEpreneur.