The A’s Tried to Trademark “Las Vegas Athletics.” The USPTO Said No — and It Complicates John Fisher’s Big Move

Written by James Carter |

The Oakland Athletics’ long, bitter break-up with the Bay Area was supposed to end with a clean reintroduction on the Strip: a new ballpark, a new market, and a brand that finally matched the destination. Instead, the team’s relocation narrative has picked up an unexpected twist in Washington.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied the A’s trademark applications for “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” For a franchise trying to plant its flag in a new city, that matters more than it sounds: trademarks sit behind everything from official merchandise and sponsorships to stadium signage, marketing campaigns, and even the look-and-feel of the team’s next era.

In plain terms, the USPTO is signaling that the team can’t simply lift its historic identity, attach “Las Vegas,” and expect automatic protection. And while this doesn’t stop the relocation on its own, it does create a branding problem that owner John Fisher will have to navigate as the franchise edges closer to Nevada.

Why the USPTO denial is a bigger deal than it looks

A trademark refusal doesn’t mean a team can’t say “Las Vegas Athletics” in conversation. It means the club may struggle to lock down the legal protections that help prevent copycats, confusingly similar branding, and unofficial merchandise that rides on the club’s fame. For a pro sports organization entering a new market, those protections are the guardrails of the commercial rollout.

The core issue: the USPTO can refuse marks when they’re deemed too descriptive, too generic, or likely to be confused with other existing uses. In the A’s case, “Athletics” is both a central part of the franchise’s identity and a term with a wide, everyday meaning in sports. When you add a place name like “Las Vegas,” the phrase can read like a description of an athletics-related organization located there — rather than a distinct brand.

The USPTO’s approach is not unusual in trademark law. It’s designed to keep common, descriptive terms from being fenced off unless the applicant can show the public strongly associates that wording with a single source. If you want a quick explainer of how refusals work, the USPTO’s own overview of likelihood of confusion in trademark examination is a useful starting point.

What this means for John Fisher’s relocation plans

John Fisher has become the face of the franchise’s move — and a lightning rod for the anger it has created. The trademark denial doesn’t rewrite MLB’s relocation timeline, but it does complicate the “new city, new identity” messaging that typically comes with a move.

Relocations are usually sold as a fresh start. For the A’s, that narrative already runs through controversy: a fan base that feels discarded, political fights over stadium financing, and a transitional period that has left the franchise looking like it’s living out of suitcases. Now add another layer — the inability (at least for now) to secure the most obvious Las Vegas-branded versions of the team name.

That matters because a move isn’t only about where a team plays. It’s also about what the team can sell. “Las Vegas Athletics” would be the most straightforward label for jerseys, hats, licensing, and marketing partnerships aimed at local fans and tourists alike. If the club can’t confidently protect that wording, it increases friction around the business side of the transition.

So what can the A’s do now?

The denial is a setback — not a dead end. The club still has several practical options, and some are more common than fans might realize:

• Lean harder on “A’s” branding — a shorter, more distinctive mark that fans already recognize, and one that could be easier to protect across merchandise categories.
• Refine the applications with more distinctive design elements (logos, stylized word marks) that function as stronger identifiers than plain text alone.
• Appeal the decision or submit additional legal arguments to show why consumers would associate “Las Vegas Athletics” with this specific MLB franchise.
• Build marketplace evidence over time — the kind of real-world usage, media recognition, advertising, and consumer association that can strengthen a future attempt.

The key point is that trademark disputes often hinge on evidence and context. As the team’s Las Vegas chapter becomes more real — through official use, marketing, and public recognition — the A’s may be in a stronger position to argue that the phrase identifies a single source: them.

The bigger story: relocation isn’t just a stadium — it’s a brand

For many fans, the heart of this saga remains emotional: a team with a deep Oakland history attempting to reinvent itself somewhere else. But the USPTO denial is a reminder that relocation is also a legal and commercial process, one where names and rights matter almost as much as bricks and seats.

In a league where identity is currency, the A’s now face a strange reality: they can pursue Las Vegas, but they may not be able to fully trademark the simplest version of what they want to be called when they get there. And for John Fisher — already battling optics, trust, and momentum — it’s another reminder that the move remains complicated in ways that aren’t always visible on the field.

For local reporting on the trademark denial, see FOX5 Las Vegas’ coverage of the USPTO decision.

Read more: Swikblog