Oakland’s ‘S.F. Bay’ Airport Name Seems to Split 9th Circuit (1)

Judges on a Ninth Circuit panel appeared divided on whether to undo an injunction prohibiting Oakland from renaming its airport “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” while a trademark infringement lawsuit brought by San Francisco progresses.

“You have Washington Dulles, Washington National and Baltimore/Washington and, in general, people don’t seem to be confused by that,” said Senior Judge Danny J. Boggs during oral argument Monday, sitting by designation from the Sixth Circuit.

Judge Daniel A. Bress seemed to disagree, saying, “The issue for me is we’ve got a very similar name, same geographic area, same market.”

San Francisco sued Oakland and the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners—which runs the city’s airport—in 2024 in the US District Court for the Northern District of California shortly after the port granted preliminary approval to change the name from “Metropolitan Oakland International Airport.”

Oakland had argued its name change was appropriate because it’s a geographic reference that would boost passenger traffic and economic activity. But San Francisco said in its complaint the renaming infringes its trademarks and could confuse passengers.

Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted a preliminary injunction in November 2024, prohibiting Oakland’s use of the new airport name while the suit progressed. He ruled the name would falsely imply affiliation with SFO and irreparably harm the city, finding the new moniker “confusingly similar.”

Oakland appealed, arguing the injunction goes beyond the bounds of trademark law and ignores that San Francisco presented no evidence of consumer confusion over who owns the Oakland airport.

Bress said he may be concerned about Hixson’s affiliation reasoning, but San Francisco’s counsel, Bobby Ghajar of Cooley LLP, said the injunction should be affirmed regardless because consumers are still likely to be confused.

The new name “wholly subsumes San Francisco’s registered trademark,” Ghajar said. “It adds some words, but it wholly subsumes it.”

Oakland’s counsel, Timothy Berg of Fennemore Craig PC, countered that the injunction must be vacated if the lower court’s affiliation analysis doesn’t stand, noting the district court didn’t find point-of-sale confusion or initial-interest confusion.

Pointing to Boggs’ point about Washington, DC-area airports, Berg noted that Baltimore/Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport is owned by Maryland and not either city in the name. “But no one cares,” he said, because consumers fly into airports that are closer to where they want to be.

Berg said to conduct a confusion analysis “untethered to the to the idea of purchasing decisions turns the Lanham Act on its head.”

‘New, New Name’

Following the injunction, Oakland in July again renamed its airport to “Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport,” which Bress dubbed the “new, new name.” That name wasn’t before the panel Monday, but San Francisco has asked the district court to amend its complaint to also target it.

Judge Salvador Mendoza Jr. said the newest name “seems a little bit more clear that you’re talking about Oakland, not San Francisco.” Berg responded that which name is better isn’t on appeal, but whether the injunction against “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” is appropriate.

San Francisco objects to both names, Ghajar said, arguing many of the factors underlying the injunction would remain the same with the reversed moniker.

San Francisco is also represented by its city attorney’s office. The port’s in-house counsel also represents Oakland.

The case is City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. City of Oakland, 9th Cir., No. 24-7532, hearing held 11/17/25.