Neither M.L.B. nor Majestic would discuss the specifics of their contract. But in public statements, Majestic's parent corporation, VF Corp.—the world's largest apparel company, which also owns Wrangler jeans, Vans footwear, North Face outerwear, and Nautica sportswear—touts its booming "Major League Baseball business under the Majestic brand."

In 2007, the year VF acquired Majestic from its founding family, Majestic produced $156 million in sales. The brand accounted for another $33 million jump in revenues for VF in the first half of 2008, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

Licensing fees from Majestic, in turn, help boost pro baseball's bottom line. M.L.B.'s total revenues—which includes ticket sales, television deals, and online subscriptions—surged to a record $6.1 billion in 2007 from $3.4 billion in 2000. Over the same period, licensing revenues more than doubled, although M.L.B. declined to reveal specific figures.

Despite its business success, some say pro baseball may be wiser not to be so aggressive in squeezing money from its youngest enthusiasts.

"It alienates everyone involved," says John Skilton, who runs Baseball-Links.com, a repository of more than 12,000 websites and blogs. "With its labor conflicts and the steroid controversy...it's one more in a series of black eyes for them."

If the team-name tussle ever winds up in court, legal analysts say it's unclear which side would win. The law generally protects a trademark only if an unauthorized use is likely to cause confusion—that "people would think Major League Baseball was somehow associated with the production of this uniform" when in fact it wasn't, says Charles McManis, a professor at Washington University School of Law.

If youth leagues take steps to differentiate their apparel, a court could rule against M.L.B., reasoning that "all people will think when they see the jersey is, Oh yeah, they're just making their jerseys look like Dodgers jerseys."

But if a court finds a team name to be a "famous mark"—which enjoys more legal protection against dilution in the marketplace—M.L.B. would probably prevail. The key is whether the name is distinctive and well known enough to constitute a "famous mark," says McManis, author of two books on intellectual-property law.

That decision, however, would not necessarily cover all Major League franchises, experts said. A court could deem White Sox and Yankees distinctive enough to be "famous marks," but not more generic-sounding teams like the Tigers and Indians.

In the court of public opinion though, M.L.B. has been striking out. Its stance has been barraged with boos and hisses in the blogosphere. Comedian Stephen Colbert has also been piling on.

"These kids aren't just stealing team names—they're ripping off all kinds of stuff from the Majors," Colbert deadpanned on a recent show. "Where did these kids get the idea of using a mitt?" he said. "Or wearing a cup?"

In its defense, Major League Baseball notes that it spent $30 million on youth programs in the last five years and makes sure that Majestic, in addition to its regular ware, offers a low-price, royalty-free line of uniforms. Cultivating a good relationship with children "is obviously very important to us," says Bourne.

Some believe pro baseball needs to do more to court the young. After all, they're the ones who one day will decide whether to shell out—or not—for tickets, hotdogs, jackets, and souvenirs.

"M.L.B. should be paying the kids to wear its uniforms," says Palandri, the Bloomingdale board member. "It's free advertising for them."