Siegal Explains Why the USPTO Said ‘No’ to the Las Vegas Athletics

Bruce Siegal, of counsel at Greenspoon Marder, wrote an article earlier this year about why the USPTO issued a non-final refusal of the trademarks LAS VEGAS ATHLETICS and VEGAS ATHLETICS for clothing, footwear, entertainment and other purposes, finding them “primarily geographically descriptive.”

“Because the team is not yet playing in Las Vegas, it cannot currently prove its acquired distinctiveness,” wrote Siegal. “This does not stop the Athletics from using the name or moving to Las Vegas, and the refusal will likely be overcome once sufficient marketplace evidence exists.

“If you’re relocating your business, changing your branding, or say, moving a 125-year-old Major League Baseball franchise across state lines, trademarks don’t automatically pack their bags and come with you.”

Siegal also offered the following takeaway:

“Adding geographic terms often weakens trademark protection. Organizations relocating or expanding, or those that may not have registered all of their marks, should consider trademark strategy early, particularly where a brand includes geographic terms.”

Siegal has more than 30 years of sports industry and intellectual property experience. As of counsel to the firm’s Entertainment & Sports practice group, he focuses on sports brand protection and enforcement, licensing, contract negotiation, marketing, and business operations. Specifically, he helps brand owners maximize intellectual property value through licensing, sponsorship, and endorsement agreements, and assisting licensees in navigating the licensing marketplace.

With a strong sports business background, Siegal developed programs to protect the trademark rights of numerous sports clients, including organizing systems to protect the NCAA Final Four and College Football Playoff marks by clearing the marketplace of counterfeit and unlicensed merchandise in coordination with the event organizers, investigators and law enforcement officials.