Understanding the Bay Area’s Newest Trademark Battle

By: Anushka Parihar

The San Francisco Bay Area is one of California’s most visited tourist destinations. Millions of visitors a year fly into San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and Oakland International Airport (OAK) to experience the Bay Area’s diverse culture, beautiful landscapes, and innovative spirit. 

Between 2019-2023, travel to Oakland decreased by nearly 2 million people, which the OAK attributes to the Covid-19 pandemic. In response, OAK has launched an advertising campaign intended to increase tourism, including a proposition to rename Oakland International Airport to “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport.” However, the City of San Francisco argues that this campaign, along with the OAK’s proposed name change, closely resembles SFO’s trademarked name and themes. These efforts, San Francisco claims, create confusion amongst travelers, leading them to believe that the Oakland and San Francisco airports are the same entity. 

San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu filed suit against Oakland, alleging that OAK’s new name infringes on San Francisco’s registered trademark. The suit seeks an injunction against Oakland and its associated partners, such as airlines, rental cars companies, and travel agencies, to prevent them from using the disputed name. 

The Trademark Battle

Trademarks are words, phrases, symbols, designs, or a combination of these elements that identify goods or services. They are important in protecting a brand’s identity and ensuring consumers recognize brands in the marketplace. In this way, trademarks can be valuable marketing tools. Having a well-known trademark can draw in new customers and keep current customers loyal to the brand. Trademarks also offer clear and enforceable legal rights, allowing brands to block competitors from adopting similar marks that mislead customers. As such, trademark law prevents unfair competition which can be damaging to businesses. 

Trademark infringement occurs when there is an unauthorized use of a trademark that could lead to confusion, deception, or misunderstanding about the source of the good or service associated with the trademark. To successfully show that infringement occurred, the plaintiff must show that the alleged infringer’s infringing goods or services create a likelihood of confusion regarding the source. 

SFO argues that OAK’s renaming to “San Francisco Bay Area Oakland International Airport” would infringe on its trademark, “San Francisco International Airport.” They claim that their name is well-recognized and the new OAK name could confuse consumers as to which airport they are actually flying in or out of, particularly international travelers who are unfamiliar with the area. Consequently, SFO could lose travelers and business to OAK, which is 30 miles away from SFO. This could also inconvenience travelers expecting to be in San Francisco, who must now find their way across the Bay. 

Oakland may respond in a few different ways. They may try to show that there is no real likelihood of confusion. If they are able to show that consumers can distinguish between the two airports, perhaps through a survey, OAK could show that SFO’s claim lacks merit. They could also challenge the strength of SFO’s trademark by arguing that a geographically descriptive term should not have trademark protection. 

Possible Implications

If SFO prevails, they’d be able to reinforce the strength of their trademark and set a precedent about how geographic locations can be used for branding and source identification. OAK would then need to revert to their previous name and restructure their entire advertising campaign, which has already cost an estimated $150,000. 

Conversely, a favorable outcome for OAK could impact how geographical trademarks are used in brand identification, creating a precedent that using geographically descriptive names may not lead to trademark disputes. It would also allow Oakland to continue its marketing strategy and attract a larger customer base. Perhaps OAK could bring business back to the point that it was prior to the pandemic. 

Alternatively, this dispute might settle out of court, if both parties are able to negotiate the terms of use of the name or for financial compensation. This way, San Francisco and Oakland could avoid unnecessary litigation and expenses. 

This local issue might create larger implications for industries where identity and consumer perception are important. As this case progresses, businesses will undoubtedly be following the dispute to ensure their branding and marketing strategies are compliant with t