NHL
As it works toward choosing and putting in place a permanent team name, Utah Hockey Club is facing obstacles in securing trademarks for each of the six options it has previously identified as finalists.
That includes the name considered by many the current favorite — the Yeti or Yetis — but also the Blizzard, Outlaws, Mammoth, Venom and HC.
Advertisement
Copyrights on all six names have recently been refused by the United States Patent and Trademark in non-final rulings. Utah has three months from the dates of the refusals to address various concerns and move forward with the trademark process. The Mammoth refusal came in November and the rest in January.
The team believes enough time remains for it to work through the red tape and decide on a permanent identity before it begins Year 2.
“Since acquiring Utah’s NHL team, we have been carefully evaluating possibilities for the permanent identity of the team, while working within the complicated world of trademarks and intellectual property,” team president Chris Armstrong said in a statement. “We will continue to involve the community in the final stages of the naming and branding process and are fully on track with our plans to announce a permanent name and identity ahead of the 2025-26 NHL season.”
In an action released Jan. 9 by the USPTO, as first reported by local news station KSL, the Yetis and Yeti names were refused due to the “likelihood of confusion” with other registered marks, including the Yeti cooler company. Venom and Blizzard were refused on the same grounds on Jan. 9 and 16, respectively.
In a Jan. 10 action, Utah Hockey Club (HC) was refused because the “mark is primarily geographically descriptive.”
Meanwhile, the Outlaws and Mammoth face the fewest hurdles since those names were deemed to have no conflicting marks that would bar registration. Clerical errors will need to be cleared up for Utah to secure those trademarks.
The USPTO was responding to the original filings made by the club last spring after Ryan and Ashley Smith purchased and relocated the Arizona Coyotes on incredibly short notice.
The responses don’t represent final decisions from the examiner on those applications and don’t eliminate any of the potential name options at this juncture. They’re simply meant to provide direction on the challenges that need to be overcome with each.
Advertisement
It’s worth noting that there were no conflicts found with a number of potential names not included among the finalists previously identified by the Utah organization, including Canyons, Blast, Fury, Squall, Swarm, Ice and Caribou.
But there is still time for Utah to resolve the outstanding issues and secure the trademarks to one or more of its desired choices. The team sought feedback from its fans while narrowing the options last spring and found that input “invaluable,” according to Armstrong.
“It has always been our intention to let our season one identity as Utah Hockey Club, the team’s performance, and the amazing response from our fans hold the conversation through our inaugural season,” he added.
The Vegas Golden Knights faced similar trademark challenges heading into their second NHL season after being founded as an expansion team in 2017.
That organization wound up entering a coexistence agreement with the U.S. Army in July 2018 which allowed the hockey team to file for naming rights while still allowing Army (whose teams are called the Black Knights, but whose parachute team is called the Golden Knights) to continue using the moniker.
(Photo: Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)
Chris Johnston is a senior writer covering the NHL for The Athletic. He has two decades of experience as an NHL Insider, having appeared on Hockey Night in Canada and the NHL Network before joining TSN in 2021. He currently hosts the “Chris Johnston Show” on the Steve Dangle Podcast Network. He’s written previously for the Toronto Star, Sportsnet and The Canadian Press. Follow Chris on Twitter @reporterchris
