There are only so many appropriate names for a baseball team. For whatever reason, MLB owners have long had a fascination with birds: the Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays, and St. Louis Cardinals. 

If you take a quick look at local amateur or semi-professional baseball or softball leagues throughout North America, you’ll notice many clubs are named after MLB teams. The majority of those teams aren’t making much, if any, revenue off of that branding, so it hasn’t been an issue for MLB clubs – until now.

The St. Louis Cardinals and the Canadian Baseball League’s (CBL) Hamilton Cardinals are opposing parties in an increasingly contentious legal dispute about logos and trademarks, known as the Cardinals trademark dispute. Below, we’ll cover what’s at stake, historical precedent, and why professional sports clubs may be more protective over their trademarks in the future.

Why Certain Team Names Become Deeply Embedded in Baseball Culture

Baseball has been known as “America’s Pastime” since the mid-19th century, and some MLB teams have histories spanning more than a century. Names like the New York Yankees or Boston Red Sox are more than labels – they represent decades of rivalries, iconic players, and shared memories among fans. 

Over time, repeated exposure through media, storytelling, and community traditions reinforces the cultural weight of these franchises – and their branding. When a team has been around for a long time and has had many celebrated moments, its name evolves into cultural symbolism beyond sport. This is partly why there was considerable objection to Cleveland changing its name from the Indians to the Guardians, despite the obvious racial insensitivities associated with the Indians logo. 

Historical Examples of Teams Sharing Identities

The Cardinals dispute is hardly the first example of two sports franchises sharing a name, although it is relatively unique in that it involves clubs in different countries and has escalated to a legal matter. In the early-to-mid 20th century, a few US cities had identical branding for their MLB, NFL, and/or NHL clubs.

The Giants’ moniker in New York was shared by the NFL and MLB teams from 1925 until 1957, when the latter relocated to San Francisco. There was also a Pittsburgh Pirates NHL team that preceded the Penguins, sharing its name with the MLB’s Pittsburgh Pirates from 1925-30. 

Interestingly, the St. Louis MLB franchise has also shared its name with other franchises over the years. Before becoming the Cardinals in 1900, they were known as the St. Louis Browns. Two years later, that name was adopted by another St. Louis MLB franchise that, in 1953, relocated to Baltimore and became the Orioles. There was also a brief period in the early 20th century when both the Chicago White Sox and Cubs were known as the White Stockings. 

Across leagues, teams sharing names is more common, even in modern sports. 

• Cardinals: St. Louis (MLB) and Arizona (NFL)
• Rangers: Texas (MLB) and New York (NHL)
• Giants: San Francisco (MLB) and New York (NFL)
• Panthers: Carolina (NFL) and Florida (NHL)
• Jets: New York (NFL) and Winnipeg (NHL)
• Kings: Sacramento (NBA) and Los Angeles (NHL)

The St. Louis and Hamilton Naming Dispute

The Hamilton baseball club has been around for decades, but changed its name to the Cardinals in 2012 “because of the club’s relationship with Hamilton Cardinals youth rep baseball program,” according to the team website. Coincidentally, this name change occurred one year after the St. Louis Cardinals won the World Series. 

The Hamilton club officially filed trademark applications in March 2023, three years before the launch of the CBL. These went uncontested until April 2025, when the St. Louis Cardinals, LLC, issued a formal statement of opposition, alleging that the Hamilton team was seeking to benefit from the “reputation and goodwill” of the MLB club’s trademarks. 

“I’m still pretty shocked by it,” said Eric Spearin, majority owner of the Hamilton team, in April. “We’re a Canadian team, Canadian trademark, we don’t play in the U.S. whatsoever. So, it was interesting that St. Louis was opposing it.”

Hamilton’s logo depicts a menacing-looking cardinal with a bat over its shoulder. It’s a departure from the Cardinals logo, but in the MLB club’s filing, it argued that Hamilton previously used variations of the St. Louis Cardinals logo for merchandising, with deliberate intent to “mimic, reference, and evoke” the team.

The St. Louis Cardinals have until June 26 to file additional evidence in the case.

The Increasing Importance of Logos and Branding in Sports

Professional sports franchises, in a sense, have evolved into global commercial enterprises. Today, there are dozens of professional sports franchises worth billions of dollars; the St. Louis Cardinals have an estimated franchise value of $2.6 billion.

A team’s logo functions as a visual shorthand for its history, values, and fan culture, creating an immediate emotional connection with audiences. Beyond that, strong branding drives merchandise sales, sponsorship deals, and media recognition, making it a central part of revenue generation. In modern sports, logos are no longer just symbols – they are strategic assets directly tied to global commercial opportunities and long-term franchise value.

Branding Challenges for Smaller Clubs

Smaller clubs have a more difficult time reaching wider audiences because they lack the exposure, marketing budgets, and media coverage of MLB franchises. Without strong visibility, it’s harder to build a recognizable identity or attract large sponsorships. Recognizing this, the St. Louis Cardinals argue that Hamilton is essentially taking a marketing shortcut, trying to piggyback off of their image and likeness. 

Balancing History and Modern Trademark Protections

Sports team logos and names have become increasingly valuable intellectual property, so it’s understandable that the St. Louis Cardinals would want to protect their trademark. They wouldn’t be the first North American sports franchise to do so; some have even filed trademark protections against their fans. In 2012, the Los Angeles Clippers approached superfan Darrell Bailey and asked him to stop referring to himself as “Clipper Darrell,” alleging that his use of the team’s trademark was for “unmonitored commercial gain.”

Cross-border trademark disputes, however, are much more complex. Hamilton filed its trademark application with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and St. Louis has secured international law firm Gowling Canada for representation.