Trade mark disputes involving professional sports teams rarely turn on obscure points of law. When they do arise, they tend to expose first principles in an unusually public and commercially consequential way.
The recent difficulties faced by Major League Baseball’s Athletics (the A’s) in seeking trade mark protection following their planned relocation to Las Vegas provide a timely illustration. At its core, the issue is not one of bad faith, prior rights, or even consumer confusion, but a more prosaic and frequently underestimated problem: geographical descriptiveness.
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) records indicate that in late 2025 they issued examination-stage refusals in respect of applications for “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics.” The outcome would be striking not because the principles applied are novel, but because of the applicant. The A’s are a 125-year-old franchise with substantial goodwill and are currently constructing a stadium on the Las Vegas Strip, reportedly costing around $2 billion.
Yet the examining authority would apply the same standards as any other applicant. The case serves as a reminder that even globally recognised brands remain subject to statutory thresholds. While this is a US-based matter, the policy considerations underpinning geographic descriptiveness will be immediately familiar to practitioners before the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO).
Why do geographical trade marks face refusal?
The refusal (or potential refusal) rests on two core principles of trade mark law: distinctiveness and descriptiveness.
The USPTO may consider “Las Vegas Athletics” primarily geographically descriptive for two reasons. Firstly, “Las Vegas” identifies a well-known geographical location. Secondly, “Athletics” is descriptive and generic for the services applied for; namely, professional sporting and entertainment services.
Under both US and UK trade mark regimes – albeit through slightly different statutory frameworks – registries are reluctant to grant monopolies over terms that other traders in the same location may legitimately need to use.
The policy concern is straightforward – a local youth track club in Nevada should be able to describe itself as engaging in athletics in ‘Las Vegas’ without facing infringement risk from a multi-billion-dollar professional franchise.
Geographical terms are generally intended to remain available to the market, reflecting a long-standing policy against granting exclusive rights in signs other traders may need to use.
Geographical terms can be granted monopoly trade mark rights in certain circumstances; namely, when the place name can in fact function as an indicator of origin in those particular circumstances. This is very much dealt with on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the specific goods/services and whether there is a pre-existing link between the place and the goods/services more generally; or, there is likely to be a link in the future and it is therefore equitable to keep the place name free to use.
A place name may be distinctive where, for example, it is specifically associated with one undertaking (e.g. ‘Yorkshire Tea’ for tea) or it is too far removed from particular goods/services to be considered generic or descriptive (e.g. ‘Amazon’ for delivery and logistics services); therefore, being capable of functioning as a trade mark. Certain geographical place names can ‘acquire’ distinctiveness – whereby the place name acquires trade mark significance through extensive use.
Closer to home: ‘Cambridge’ and the limits of control
This issue is not confined to the American desert. Comparable disputes have played out repeatedly in the UK.
The University of Cambridge has been involved in trade mark disputes local businesses over the use of and applications for trade marks containing the word “Cambridge,” particularly in sport- and education-related contexts.
As recently reported, a local business (Cambridge Rowing Limited) has recently filed an application to protect “Cambridge Rowing” which has been opposed by the University. The application covers goods and services in Class 25 (clothing), Class 35 (merchandising/product merchandising) and Class 41 (sports and entertainment services). A hearing was conducted at the end of last year and a decision is likely to be reached this year.
Once decided, the case will shed a light on to what extent the University can monopolise the word ‘Cambridge’. Clearly, the University has a longstanding association with rowing and other sports – Cambridge Rowing will likely have a hard time persuading the UKIPO to accept their application for the Class 41 sports related services.
The University is also likely to be keen to prevent the registration of ‘Cambridge Rowing’ for Class 25 ‘clothing’ and Class 35 ‘merchandising’ services, given that ‘Cambridge University’ branded merchandise is likely to be a significant commercial revenue stream. Nonetheless, in this context, it is much more debatable whether or not the term ‘Cambridge’ is exclusively associated with the University.
Lessons for businesses
The “Las Vegas” and “Cambridge” scenarios offer three practical lessons for brand owners:
- Distinctiveness remains the strongest asset.
Marks that describe what you do or where you operate, such as “The London Accountants,” are inherently harder to register and enforce. Arbitrary or suggestive marks reduce both prosecution risk and long-term enforcement cost.
- Legacy does not travel automatically.
Registration of a geographical brand in one city does not guarantee registrability of a different geographical place name.
- Timing and evidence require a strategy.
Early filing can be commercially sensible, surfacing obstacles before significant sunk costs arise. However, it can also expose evidential gaps that require a longer-term brand strategy to address.
Avoiding foul balls and false starts
Whether it is a baseball franchise in Nevada or a rowing brand in East Anglia, the principle is the same. An effective trade mark strategy demands more than recognition or heritage. It requires a realistic assessment of how a mark will be perceived by examiners, competitors, and consumers at the relevant time. By the time a problem crystallises on the register, it is usually already expensive to fix.
If you are planning a relocation, rebrand, or geographic expansion, don’t leave your trade mark strategy to chance. Contact our trade mark attorneys to conduct a preliminary availability search, assess potential geographic or descriptiveness risks, and develop a tailored filing strategy that protects your brand before costly issues arise.