- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Artificial Intelligence
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- Environmental, Social, and Governance
- Foreign Direct Investment
- Food and Beverage
- Gaming
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- In Focus
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- IP & Tech Era
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Student Corner
- Take On Board
- Tax
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Viewpoint
- Zoom In
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- Middle East
- Africa
US Patent Office rejects Major League Baseball’s trademark application
US Patent Office rejects Major League Baseball’s trademark application
The club is likely to approach the appeal board or the federal court
The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has rejected the Major League Baseball (MLB) club's application to register ‘Las Vegas Athletics’ and ‘Vegas Athletics’ as the team's own.
The Athletics have been playing MLB for over 100 years. However, it is not enough to secure a new trademark in advance of the franchise's future move to Las Vegas.
Media reports stated that trademark attorney Josh Gerben had said that the refusals were issued in December last and ‘athletics’ was a way to describe everyday activity. It was a vague term to hold a trademark for a single entity.
Earlier, the PTO awarded a trademark for Philadelphia Athletics, Kansas City Athletics and Oakland Athletics, representing the three cities, which the club has called ‘home’. In the past, the team’s ‘Athletics’ logo was awarded a trademark.
Attorney Gerben has stated that the issue seems to be that the A's have not yet established themselves in Las Vegas, despite the club's Triple-A team playing in Las Vegas and their stadium under construction in the vicinity.
Currently, the MLB team plays in California’s capital, Sacramento, even though it does not brand itself with its name. The A’s are likely to play their first game in their new Las Vegas home in 2028.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that since the MLB oversees trademark applications for all teams, the A's could bag the trademark rights soon. They are likely to approach the appeal board or the federal court.



