USPTO Denies ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ Trademark as Geographically Descriptive
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued a second refusal of trademark applications filed by the owner of the Athletics, denying registration of ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ and ‘Vegas Athletics.’
The refusals, issued on December 29, reaffirm an earlier decision finding that the marks are primarily geographically descriptive and therefore not eligible for registration on the Principal Register.
According to the USPTO, the dominant portion of each mark refers to a well-known geographic location (Las Vegas) while the remaining wording, ‘Athletics,’ lacks distinctiveness as applied to the goods and services identified in the applications.
The examining attorney noted that “athletics” is defined as “activities such as sports, exercises, and games that require physical skill and stamina,” and concluded that the term directly describes “the purpose and feature of the applicant’s goods and services.” As a result, the USPTO found that the marks merely describe a professional sports team located in Las Vegas rather than functioning as unique indicators of source.
The team attempted to overcome the refusal by pointing to its ownership of multiple existing trademarks incorporating the word “Athletics,” including registrations for Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics, Oakland Athletics, and a stylized ‘Athletics’ logo. However, the USPTO rejected that argument, reiterating that each trademark application must be evaluated on its own merits and that prior registrations do not bind the Office to approve new applications.
The team also argued that the marks had acquired distinctiveness through decades of continuous use of the ‘Athletics’ name across multiple cities. The USPTO was unpersuaded, concluding that the marks are “so highly descriptive that the applicant’s burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness is commensurately high and requires more evidence.”
Why this refusal is technically right (and practically strange)
So what does this all mean?
At a fundamental level, trademark law requires that a registrable mark be distinctive. If a mark merely describes the goods or services being offered (or their geographic origin), the USPTO will refuse registration because competitors may need to use the same language to describe their own offerings.
From a purely technical standpoint, the USPTO’s refusal is defensible.
The name ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ describes a professional “athletics” organization located in Las Vegas. And, the team has not yet begun widespread commercial use of that name for many of the goods and services listed in its applications. Without that use, there is limited evidence the USPTO can rely on to find that the mark has acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace.
That said, it is unusual, borderline odd, for an MLB franchise to run into this kind of roadblock.
Professional sports teams typically have no trouble demonstrating that the public associates a team name with a single source. When people hear ‘Athletics,’ they don’t think of generic sporting activities… they think of the baseball team currently playing in Sacramento and planning a move to Las Vegas.
The real problem here is procedural timing. Because the team has not yet started operating as the Las Vegas Athletics, it cannot easily produce the kind of marketplace evidence, such as sales figures, advertising spend, media recognition, and consumer perception, that would normally overcome a descriptiveness refusal.
That puts the organization in a classic rock-and-a-hard-place scenario.
There is also a clear legal precedent that prior trademark registrations do not guarantee approval of new trademarks. From the USPTO’s perspective, Oakland Athletics and Las Vegas Athletics are legally different marks, and the agency is well within its rights to hold that line and deny these new trademark applications.
Still, this case has the potential to push the law in a new direction. At a practical level, it is hard to argue that the public would perceive ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ as anything other than the existing MLB franchise. That opens the door to more creative legal arguments, but pursuing them would likely require an appeal to federal court.
One other option at this point would be for the team to retain a survey expert. A properly designed consumer perception survey could provide powerful evidence that the public overwhelmingly associates ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ with the Athletics ownership group and its MLB team. That type of data can move the needle with examiners, especially with these types of refusals.
Do I expect the Athletics to ultimately secure these registrations?
Yes.
An organization of this prominence will almost certainly be able to generate sufficient evidence of distinctiveness over time.
In the meantime, however, this is a real problem. Without a federal trademark registration, enforcing rights against unlicensed merchandise sellers and other third-party uses becomes significantly more difficult.
For now, the Athletics remain stuck in trademark limbo. How (and how quickly) they resolve it will be worth watching as the relocation process continues.
Josh Gerben, Esq.
Josh Gerben, Esq. is a nationally recognized trademark attorney and the founder of Gerben IP. Since launching the firm in 2008, he has overseen the registration of over 10,000 trademarks and handled over 1,500 trademark disputes. Josh's practice focuses on building and defending global trademark portfolios for clients. These clients include entrepreneurs, private equity-backed businesses, athletes, celebrities, and public companies. Frequently quoted by major media outlets like CNBC, CNN, The New York Times, and The Wall Street Journal, Josh is widely regarded as a leading authority in trademark law.
Do you need assistance with a trademark matter?
Contact an Attorney Today