Trademark Lessons from the LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS
The name “Athletics” has been part of American sports history for over a century. From the Philadelphia Athletics to today’s Oakland A’s, the brand has moved cities, built generations of fans, and become synonymous with sports identity. Recently, Athletics Investment Group LLC filed trademarks for LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS (SN 98488414) and VEGAS ATHLETICS (SN 98488419). The filings also coincide with the group’s announced plan to relocate the franchise to Las Vegas, which adds a new geographic element to the brand.
The USPTO issued office actions on December 29, 2025, which highlight some of the challenges that can arise even with a well-known name—and show how comprehensive trademark research can help applicants anticipate and navigate those challenges.
Descriptive Terms and Distinctiveness
One key hurdle in the office actions was the word ATHLETICS. The USPTO noted:
“Applicant’s claim of ownership of [prior] registration is insufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness because the mark is highly descriptive of the goods and/or services.”
A descriptive term, like ATHLETICS, tells consumers something about the goods or services themselves—in this case, sports apparel, training programs, games, and fan events.
Comprehensive research can reveal how widely a term is used in the marketplace, both in registered marks and in common law usage. This information helps applicants understand the level of evidence required to show distinctiveness under Section 2(f) and guides decisions about disclaimers or supporting evidence.
The office action illustrates a key rule in trademark law: the more descriptive a mark, the higher the standard for proving that consumers recognize it as a brand rather than a category of goods or services. Even owning prior registrations doesn’t automatically establish distinctiveness if the term is widely used in commerce.
Evaluating Prior Trademark Registrations
The applicant referenced prior registrations to support claims of acquired distinctiveness, but the USPTO explained:
“The applied-for mark and the mark in the prior registration are not the same mark, and thus are not legal equivalents.”
Differences in city names, visual style, or wording can make two marks distinct in the eyes of the USPTO.
Comprehensive trademark research includes analyzing these elements—visual presentation, wording variations, and geographic identifiers—to determine whether prior marks can genuinely support a new filing. This analysis informs filing strategies and helps applicants plan disclaimers or adjust the scope of goods and services to maximize the chances of approval.
Geographic Names and Section 2(e)(2)
Another focus of the office actions is that LAS VEGAS is geographically descriptive:
“LAS VEGAS is a generally known location… the primary significance of the wording LAS VEGAS is the geographic location.”
Geographic terms signal origin to consumers. In these applications, the USPTO recognized that the services and goods are associated with Las Vegas, which reinforces the geographic significance.
Comprehensive research coupled with legal analysis can flag potential Section 2(e)(2) issues in advance. Knowing that combining a prominent city with a generic or descriptive term like ATHLETICS may trigger additional scrutiny allows applicants to prepare evidence for acquired distinctiveness or consider alternative naming strategies before filing.
Scope of Goods and Services
The USPTO also raised concerns about the breadth and mismatch of some goods and services listed in the applications. For example, the filings included:
- Live music concerts
- Guided tours of a baseball stadium
- Community and cultural events
These offerings are broader or different from the goods and services covered in prior registrations for marks containing “Athletics.” When the USPTO evaluates acquired distinctiveness or potential conflicts, it considers not just the mark itself but the specific goods and services it applies to.
Comprehensive trademark research helps applicants see these overlaps and gaps in advance. By analyzing how similar marks are used in the marketplace and which goods or services they cover, applicants can refine their filings—narrowing categories, adjusting wording, or excluding unrelated services—to reduce the risk of refusals or objections.
Essentially, research allows for strategic alignment between the mark and the goods/services, making the application stronger and more likely to survive examination.
Possible Next Steps (A “Let’s Wait and See” Section)
While we don’t know exactly how Athletics Investment Group LLC will respond, common approaches might include:
- Submitting evidence of use to strengthen claims of acquired distinctiveness
- Refining the list of goods and services to focus on activities that align with existing “Athletics” trademark registrations
- Submitting disclaimers for generic wording like “ATHLETICS” and geographic disclaimers for LAS VEGAS
- Considering the Supplemental Register if demonstrating distinctiveness for the Principal Register is too difficult
These potential strategies illustrate how research can inform decisions at every stage—from naming to filing to responding to office actions.
Takeaway
The LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS office actions show that even familiar or historic names face nuanced trademark challenges. Comprehensive research doesn’t just identify potential conflicts—it informs every aspect of filing strategy: from selecting distinctive wording, to evaluating geographic terms, to defining goods and services.
In trademark law, preparation and insight make all the difference. When research is used strategically, applicants can anticipate hurdles, make informed decisions, and move forward with greater confidence. If you’re considering a new trademark—or expanding an existing brand into new territory—TradeMark Express can help you understand the landscape before you file, so there are fewer surprises once the application reaches the USPTO.