When Bureaucracy Meets Baseball: Is the Government Overreaching on the Athletics’ Trademark?

By Michael Phillips | CABayNews / Thunder Report

By any normal measure, the Athletics are not a fly-by-night startup trying to game the trademark system. They are a century-old professional sports franchise that has played Major League Baseball under the same core identity since 1901, moving cities but never abandoning the “Athletics” name. Yet as they prepare for their controversial relocation to Las Vegas, the federal government has told them—twice—that they cannot yet call themselves the “Las Vegas Athletics.”

The question is no longer just about trademark law. It’s about whether a rigid, timing-obsessed bureaucracy is overstepping when it applies small-business rules to a globally recognized sports institution.

The USPTO Says the Name Is “Too Obvious”

On December 29, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a second non-final refusal of trademark applications for “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” The reason: the marks are “primarily geographically descriptive” under Section 2(e)(2) of the Lanham Act.

In plain English, the government’s position is this:

• “Las Vegas” (or “Vegas”) is a well-known location.
• “Athletics” describes sports activity.
• Put together, the phrase merely describes a sports team in Las Vegas—not a distinctive brand.

This logic is not new. The USPTO routinely blocks attempts by new companies to monopolize phrases like “Chicago Pizza” or “Miami Fitness.” The law is designed to prevent businesses from locking up generic geography-plus-description combinations.

But here’s the problem: the Athletics are not a new business, and “Athletics” is not a new brand.

A Century of Use—and Still Not Enough?

The team—formally the Oakland Athletics, and temporarily playing in Sacramento—argued that “Athletics” has acquired distinctiveness through more than 100 years of continuous use in professional baseball. They cited prior registrations for “Philadelphia Athletics,” “Kansas City Athletics,” and “Oakland Athletics.”

The USPTO’s response was technically correct—and practically tone-deaf: each trademark application is evaluated independently, and prior city-specific registrations do not automatically carry over to a new geographic designation.

From a procedural standpoint, that’s true. From a real-world standpoint, it borders on absurd. Fans, broadcasters, merchandisers, and sponsors already understand what “the Athletics” are. No rational consumer believes “Las Vegas Athletics” could refer to just any athletic activity in Nevada.

Timing as a Weapon

The government’s real leverage here isn’t substance—it’s timing.

Because the team will not actually play in Las Vegas until 2028 (with interim seasons in Sacramento), the USPTO says the Athletics cannot yet prove “acquired distinctiveness” tied specifically to Las Vegas. No Las Vegas ticket sales. No Las Vegas advertising data. No Las Vegas consumer surveys.

This creates a regulatory Catch-22:

• You can’t register the name until you play there.
• You can’t fully protect the name while preparing to play there.
• And during that gap, third parties can exploit the ambiguity.

For a major franchise investing billions in a relocation, that’s not a minor inconvenience—it’s a structural vulnerability created by federal process.

Compare the Raiders—and the Inconsistency Becomes Clear

The contrast with the Las Vegas Raiders is instructive. “Raiders” is an inherently distinctive term—evoking pirates, not football—and therefore avoids the geographic descriptiveness trap. The NFL franchise has operated under the Las Vegas name since 2020 with minimal friction from regulators, relying on common-law rights even while some federal registrations remain pending.

The Athletics don’t have that luxury. “Athletics,” despite its historic branding power, is treated as a generic descriptor when stripped of its legacy context.

Legally neat? Yes.
Practically coherent? Not really.

Is This What Trademark Law Was Meant to Do?

Trademark law exists to prevent consumer confusion and unfair competition—not to pretend that a 124-year-old MLB franchise is indistinguishable from a local rec league.

No one is confused about who the “Las Vegas Athletics” would be.
No one thinks they’re shopping for generic athletic services.
And no one benefits when bureaucratic formalism delays brand certainty for a major employer, taxpayer, and cultural institution.

Even trademark experts acknowledge this is likely a temporary hurdle. The team has six months to respond, can move the marks to the Supplemental Register, or can simply wait until real Las Vegas use generates the evidence the USPTO demands. Most expect the registrations to succeed eventually.

But the larger issue remains: the government is enforcing the letter of the law while ignoring its purpose.

A Procedural Obstacle, Not a Public Interest Victory

This isn’t consumer protection. It’s administrative inertia.

When federal agencies apply one-size-fits-all standards without discretion for context, they risk undermining confidence in the system itself. The Athletics will almost certainly prevail in the long run—but only after wasting time, money, and legal effort navigating a problem that exists largely on paper.

For a country that prides itself on free enterprise, strong property rights, and common sense, that’s a warning sign worth paying attention to—far beyond baseball.

---

Support Independent Journalism

California Bay News is part of the Bay News Media Network — a growing group of independent, reader-supported newsrooms covering government accountability, courts, public safety, and institutional failures across the country.

Support independent journalism that isn’t funded by political parties, corporations, or government agencies
Submit tips or documents securely — if you see something wrong, we want to know

Independent reporting only works when readers stay engaged. Your attention, tips, and support help keep these stories alive.