For the second time, the Athletics MLB franchise has been denied the “Las Vegas Athletics” and “Vegas Athletics” trademarks by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In a document released on Dec. 29, the governing body ruled that the Athletics do not have the necessary “acquired distinctiveness” to earn the trademarks.

“ATHLETICS means activities such as sports, exercises and games that require physical skill and stamina … therefore the prior registration do not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness and the claim is not accepted,” the court document reads.

The USPTO argues “athletics” is an overarching term that is too broad to be trademarked. In trademark law, a description of what service the team provides and its geographic location is not sufficient. While the name refers to a professional team in Las Vegas, the USPTO argues there are too many other possible uses. In theory, others may need to use “Las Vegas” and athletics to describe their business.

However, this isn’t an argument that other professional franchises have typically had to combat. An ordinary procedure for most professional teams has become quite the ordeal for Athletics’ management. The USPTO’s dismissal is a rare rebuke of team trademark efforts.

An obstacle to the trademark approval is the lack of a strong geographical connection between Las Vegas and the MLB franchise currently. A’s management has not begun marketing the franchise as the Las Vegas Athletics. Without the proper evidence of the team’s association with the Las Vegas name and its subsequent relevance, including the selling of merchandise, there is less for the government to work with.

The USPTO rejected the Athletics’ argument that they have already developed “Athletics” trademarks associated with multiple cities, including previous franchise homes in Kansas City and Philadelphia. That argument was rejected, as the USPTO reiterated that every trademark proposal ought to be evaluated individually.

“The marks in the prior registrations do not support applicant’s claim of acquired distinctiveness because they are not the same marks,” the case document reads.

Longstanding use of the “Athletics” brand in a multitude of cities did not satisfy the USPTO as justification for a trademark.

“The applicant’s burden of establishing acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) is commensurately high and requires more evidence.”

It is highly likely that the “Las Vegas Athletics” or “Vegas Athletics” trademarks will be accepted at some point. As the franchise builds its connection to Las Vegas over time, it will be able to garner the necessary evidence to receive USPTO approval. For now, however, the Athletics are in a pickle as they will struggle to fight other organizations profiting off the new team name.