At Wrigley Field, a single letter once had a simple but important job. When the ballpark’s scoreboard was rebuilt in 1937, a W flag went up after a Cubs win, giving people nearby, including passengers on the elevated trains, a quick way to know the result. Over the years, that signal became part of Cubs culture and eventually the “Fly the W” rallying cry. Washington gave the letter a different meaning.

When the Montreal Expos moved to Washington in 2005 and became the Nationals, the franchise revived the curly W that had been used by Washington’s second Senators franchise in the 1960s. The Texas Rangers, the former Senators franchise, allowed the Nationals to use the mark when the Expos arrived in Washington. For the Cubs, W meant a win. For Washington, it carried a piece of the city’s baseball history. Now, a third use of the letter has brought those histories together.

The Chicago Cubs and Washington Nationals are opposing the WNBA’s attempt to trademark “The W” for apparel, putting three professional sports identities at odds over how the phrase can be used commercially.

“The Cubs and Nationals are in a trademark dispute with the WNBA over ‘The W.’ An MLB source tells FOS the sides are engaged in discussions and expect the issue to be resolved ‘amicably,'” reported Front Office Sports.

The WNBA filed its application on March 26, 2025, seeking protection for “THE W” on sports jerseys, shirts, sweatshirts, caps, hats, footwear and other apparel. The application is a standard-character mark, meaning the filing seeks protection for the words themselves rather than one particular visual design.

The application was published for opposition on February 10, 2026. On August 10, the Cubs and Nationals filed a joint opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that the WNBA’s mark could create confusion with their existing W-related trademarks. The official TTAB record lists the Cubs and Nationals as the opposers and the WNBA as the defendant.

The Washington Nationals use an italicized or “curly” ‘W’ as their official logo. But that connection is older than the current franchise. The logo was used by the Washington Senators from the 1960s before that franchise moved to Texas and became the Rangers. The Nationals were later able to acquire the rights to the mark when they arrived from Montreal.

The Cubs also have their own long-term history with the ‘W.’ They have a tradition of flying a white flag with a blue ‘W’ on it at Wrigley Field after each win. The W flag was originally part of a system that also included an L flag for losses, allowing people outside the ballpark to see the result. The current white-and-blue W flag became the familiar version over time.

And this isn’t the first time the Cubs and Nationals have found themselves on the same side of a W-related trademark dispute. In 2015, MLB opposed a trademark application from WalletHub, a financial website whose logo featured a white W on a green background. The league argued that it could be confused with W marks associated with the two clubs. The dispute eventually ended after WalletHub amended its application to clarify that its services were unrelated to baseball and softball.

That earlier fight is notable because the argument was not about two identical logos. It centered on whether consumers could connect a W used by another business to the baseball teams. More than a decade later, the Cubs and Nationals are making a similar argument against another W-related application, this time from another major sports league and for apparel, a category that overlaps much more directly with the teams’ merchandise.

The Front Office Sports cited an MLB source, claiming that the WNBA and the NBA have been regularly communicating with the MLB teams. The sides are reportedly trying to establish “clear boundaries” between their respective uses of the mark, with the dispute expected to be resolved “amicably.” The NBA owns 42% of the WNBA, adding another layer to the talks between the leagues.

The WNBA had already filed another “THE W” trademark application in 2024, but that filing covered basketball-related entertainment and educational services rather than merchandise. It includes television and radio programming, live basketball games, clinics, camps, fan-club services and other entertainment tied to women’s professional basketball.

That 2024 application was not opposed by the Cubs or Nationals. The key difference is the category: the newer application reaches directly into apparel, including jerseys, shirts and caps. In other words, the dispute is less about the WNBA calling itself “The W” and more about how broadly it can protect that phrase on products.

The WNBA began building its modern identity around the “W” during its 2019 rebrand. Roman King, who led the league’s creative direction, described that period as an “evolution” or “reset,” with the new identity aimed at a younger and more diverse audience.

That makes the trademark especially useful to the league: “The W” is no longer just shorthand for the WNBA. It has become part of how the league presents itself to fans and sells its identity.

Trademark law and filing oppositions

A trademark opposition does not mean the WNBA has been sued in court. The proceeding is before the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which handles challenges to trademark applications. After a trademark application is published, parties generally have 30 days to oppose it or request additional time. That opposition period can be extended to as much as 180 days.

In this case, the WNBA’s application was published on February 10, 2026, giving potential opponents time to challenge the filing. The Cubs and Nationals ultimately filed their joint opposition on August 10, the final day of the extended opposition period, according to the reporting and TTAB record.

Trademark law expert Josh Gerben believes that having “The” before W gives the WNBA a strong chance of getting its application through.

“That creates what we call a really unique commercial impression,” Gerben told Front Office Sports. “A consumer that sees the phrase ‘The W’ versus just the stylized W that the Washington Nationals have or that the Cubs are using in some cases—the argument is that consumers aren’t going to get confused.”

Gerben also suggested that the most straightforward solution could be for the WNBA to limit the mark to uses clearly tied to women’s basketball. The league, however, may not want additional restrictions placed on a trademark it hopes to use across its apparel business.

That distinction could become the real sticking point. The WNBA is not trying to claim ownership of the letter “W.” It is seeking protection for the phrase “THE W” in connection with a specific category of goods. The Cubs and Nationals, meanwhile, are relying on their existing W-related rights and arguing that the new apparel mark could create confusion.

Now, the question before the trademark board is not simply who gets to use the letter W, but where the boundaries should be drawn when three major sports brands have built commercial identities around it.