The Athletics’ attempt to lock down the “Las Vegas Athletics” brand just hit another snag.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a non-final office action on Dec. 29 refusing trademark applications for “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics,” according to multiple reports.
That doesn’t stop the franchise’s relocation plan, but it does create real pressure for the organization as it tries to build momentum (and merchandise) around Las Vegas before the move
The timing is what makes it feel especially jarring for fans: the trademark setback surfaced just days after reports (and then confirmation) that Tyler Soderstrom agreed to the richest guaranteed contract in franchise history, a seven-year, $86 million extension that can climb higher with escalators and an option year.
If anything, the Athletics should have been riding high and leaning into marketing its new star. But now, the team is forced to rethink its branding strategy as it begins a major transformation in club history.
Key details (fast):
- USPTO refusal was issued Dec. 29, 2025 (non-final).
- Marks involved: “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.”
- MLB centrally handles trademarks for its clubs; the A’s/MLB can respond to the office action.
- Reports say the issue is tied to distinctiveness and the generic/descriptive nature of “Athletics” in this context.
USPTO’s Issue: “Athletics” Doesn’t Work Like a Unique Brand (Yet)
The refusal is being framed around a basic trademark problem: the USPTO’s examining attorney found the wording is too descriptive for the goods and services involved and doesn’t function as a distinctive identifier in the way a protected brand needs to.
Sports Business Journal relayed trademark attorney Josh Gerben’s explanation that the USPTO essentially viewed “athletics” as a term others may need to use (think youth sports groups or local organizations), which makes granting one entity exclusive rights trickier.
Gerben’s breakdown also notes the timing problem: if the club isn’t widely operating and marketing itself under the “Las Vegas Athletics” name yet, it’s harder to prove the phrase has acquired distinctiveness in the marketplace.
What It Means for the A’s Vegas Branding Push
This is not the same thing as the team being told it can’t call itself the Las Vegas Athletics someday. The bigger practical issue is leverage: trademark registration can make it easier to police unlicensed merch and protect branding as the club ramps up its Vegas identity.
It also drops right into a weird in-between moment for the franchise. SBJ noted the A’s have been playing in Sacramento while the Las Vegas ballpark project continues, and the club hasn’t branded itself as the “Sacramento Athletics” in that interim stretch.
That matters because the more a team is visibly “living” under a name – merch, marketing, media usage, fan recognition – the more evidence it can bring back to the USPTO when it tries again (or responds).
What Happens Next (And the Simple Fix the Team May Need)
Because this is a non-final office action, the A’s/MLB can respond and try to satisfy the USPTO’s concerns rather than starting from scratch.
Gerben’s suggestion, relayed by SBJ, was straightforward: lean into “Vegas Athletics” / “Las Vegas Athletics” marketing now – sell more branded merchandise, push campaigns, and build the public association – then return with stronger evidence that people see the phrase and think “MLB team,” not a generic description.
In other words: the A’s may not have lost the name. They may have lost the clock, and now they have to prove the brand before the move gets close enough that the league wants everything finalized.
What to watch next: whether MLB/the A’s file a response, and whether the team starts visibly using “Vegas Athletics” branding more aggressively in the months ahead.
Athletics Dealt Bad News Just Days After Tyler Soderstrom Record Deal