Recent trademark refusals issued in both the United States and Canada in relation to the marks LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS provide a timely and instructive case study on the limits of trademark protection for geographic team names. The applications were filed by Athletics Investment Group LLC, the ownership entity behind the Oakland Athletics Major League Baseball franchise, in anticipation of the club’s planned relocation to Las Vegas in 2028.

Preliminary refusals have now been issued by both the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”). Although the statutory frameworks differ, the reasoning and outcomes are closely aligned. In both jurisdictions, the core issue is essentially the same: a city name combined with a descriptive sports term lacks inherent distinctiveness and directly conveys geographic origin and the nature of the goods and services.

U.S. trademark rejections – geographic descriptiveness and acquired distinctiveness

On December 29, 2025, the USPTO refused registration of LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS on multiple grounds, including:

  • primarily geographically descriptive matter under section 2(e)(2) of the U.S. Trademark Act; and
  • failure to establish acquired distinctiveness under section 2(f).

The U.S. Examiner concluded that:

  1. LAS VEGAS (and VEGAS) is a well-known geographic location;
  2. the applicant’s professional baseball and related entertainment services will be rendered from Las Vegas;
  3. consumers would therefore expect the goods and services to originate in, or be associated with, Las Vegas; and
  4. the term ATHLETICS is generic or, at minimum, highly descriptive for athletic apparel and professional sports and entertainment services in Classes 25 and 41.

The USPTO further rejected the applicant’s attempt to rely on prior ATHLETICS-based registrations to support a claim of acquired distinctiveness. The cited registrations were found not to be legal equivalents because they were either highly stylized logos or different marks altogether. In the context of professional sports, the Examiner also emphasized that geographic designation is not ancillary; rather, it is a primary means by which teams are identified and distinguished in the marketplace.

Canadian trademark rejections – parallel conclusions under Canadian law

Corresponding Canadian trademark applications for LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS have also received preliminary rejections raising substantively similar concerns under the Trademarks Act, albeit through distinctly Canadian statutory provisions.

The Canadian Examiner alleged that the marks are unregistrable pursuant to paragraph 12(1)(b) because the term LAS VEGAS (or VEGAS) ATHLETICS is either:

  • clearly descriptive of the character and quality of the goods and services, namely that they are athletics-related goods and services originating in Las Vegas; or
  • deceptively misdescriptive, if the goods and services do not, in fact, originate in Las Vegas or relate to athletics.

The objection applies to all designated goods and services, including apparel, professional sports entertainment, training services, media production, fan engagement, and stadium-related services. The Examiner’s analysis expressly treats Las Vegas as a “place of origin” for the purposes of paragraph 12(1)(b), notwithstanding that it is a foreign geographic location.

The Examiner also issued a refusal under paragraph 37(1)(d), taking the preliminary view that the marks are not inherently distinctive. The reasoning follows directly from the descriptiveness analysis: a mark that merely identifies the field of activity (athletics) and the geographic origin (Las Vegas) does not function to distinguish the applicant’s goods or services from those of other traders.

Canadian trademark practice treats inherent distinctiveness as an independent threshold requirement. Where a mark fails because it is clearly descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive, it will almost invariably also fail on inherent distinctiveness grounds.

Converging outcomes in Canada and the U.S.

Despite procedural and statutory differences, the U.S. and Canadian trademark refusals converge on consistent policy outcomes:

  • geographic names, when used accurately, are descriptive of origin;
  • descriptive sports terminology (such as “athletics”) remains available for use by others in the marketplace; and
  • Trademark law should not grant exclusive rights in combinations that competitors may reasonably need to describe their own goods or services.

In industries such as sports and entertainment, where team identity is inherently tied to location, the law takes a particularly cautious approach to monopolizing geographic designations.

Practical implications

These parallel Office Actions offer several practical lessons:

  1. Geographic-based word marks are structurally weak: Even high-profile franchises face significant registrability barriers when relying solely on team names that pair geographic names with descriptive or generic terms.  In these cases, logos, composite marks, and distinctive non-geographic branding elements often provide more reliable protection.
  2. Relocation resets the trademark analysis: Changing a geographic identifier (in this case, from Oakland to Las Vegas) can negate the benefit of long-standing brand equity in a prior registration of a geographic name paired with descriptive or generic terms.
  3. Early trademark planning is critical: Rebranding strategies should be informed by trademark registrability analysis, particularly where the proposed marks incorporate geographic and/or other descriptive terminology. In such cases, early steps to establish trademark use should be considered.

Conclusion

The parallel provisional refusals issued by the USPTO and CIPO reflect a textbook application of trademark law principles governing geographic descriptiveness and inherent distinctiveness.

While the initial refusals appear to be appropriate and legally sound, the long-term prospects for registration of the LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS marks in Canada and the U.S. are materially stronger than for most applicants facing similar objections. With sustained future use of these trademarks in connection with professional baseball, extensive licensed merchandising, and media exposure, it is highly likely that these marks will be registrable on the basis of acquired distinctiveness in both Canada and the United States.

That said, reliance on acquired distinctiveness alone to register a geographically descriptive word mark remains sub-optimal. In contrast, logos, designs, insignia, and other distinctive secondary branding can generally be registered without material objection. Early protection of these elements provides near-term, enforceable registered trademark rights, while the evidentiary record necessary to support acquired distinctiveness in the core geographic word marks is being established.

If you have any questions about this article or require assistance with trademark and branding matters, please do not hesitate to reach out to the author or a member of our Trademarks team.