If you’re a hockey fan or someone who follows sports branding trends, you may have heard about the Utah Hockey Club’s year-long name contest. Following the relocation of the Arizona Coyotes to Salt Lake City, the team temporarily adopted the name “Utah Hockey Club” while inviting fans to help select a permanent identity. After rounds of voting and community input, the winning name was officially announced: Utah Mammoth.

However, the path to this name was anything but smooth and offers some valuable lessons in trademark law and brand strategy.

When the Top Pick Isn’t an Option

Initially, the fan-favorite name was Utah Yetis, a creative nod to the snowy, mountainous environment of Utah—ideal territory, hypothetically, for the mythical yeti. Unfortunately, this top choice quickly ran into trouble with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Why? The name clashed with Yeti Coolers, a well-known outdoor brand that doesn’t just sell coolers. Yeti also markets branded apparel, drinkware, bags, and other lifestyle merchandise, which happen to be many of the same types of products professional sports teams sell. Because of this overlap in merchandising, the USPTO found a likelihood of confusion and ultimately denied the trademark application.

The takeaway: Even if two businesses serve very different core purposes, shared product categories can create legal problems. The fact that one is a hockey team and the other a cooler manufacturer didn’t matter as much as the similarity in their retail goods.

A Mammoth-Sized Opportunity

After revisiting several alternative names, including Outlaws, Blizzard, and Venom, fans eventually voted in favor of Utah Mammoth. The choice draws on local history: mammoths roamed the Utah region more than 10,000 years ago, and their fossils have been found across the state.

Interestingly, this name could have sparked another intellectual property conflict. The Colorado Mammoth, a National Lacrosse League team, already held the name in professional sports. But in a refreshing turn of events, Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, the owners of the Colorado team, gave their full support and publicly stated they had no issue sharing the name.

This raises an important point: despite the potential for confusion between two sports teams using the same name, it is often cooperation and context, rather than automatic legal action, that determines the outcome.

Key Lessons for Business Owners

The Utah Hockey Club’s naming journey is a perfect case study in branding unpredictability. What seems like a straightforward, exciting idea, like naming a hockey team after a snow-dwelling mythical creature, can quickly be derailed by a trademark conflict. On the other hand, what seems like an obvious overlap (two sports teams with the same name) may turn out to be a non-issue, thanks to collaboration and goodwill.

If you’re starting or rebranding a business, the biggest takeaway is this: never assume a name is safe to use just because it “feels” different from other brands. Always consult a legal professional to conduct thorough trademark searches and evaluate potential conflicts early in the process.

At Mindful Counsel, we specialize in helping clients navigate these legal gray areas. Whether you’re selecting a name, designing a logo, or preparing to launch, our team will help you minimize risk and maximize your brand’s staying power. Because in the world of intellectual property, planning ahead is your strongest defense.

 Guest post by Cameron Pickle, Associate Law Clerk

Have more questions? Reach out about how we can help protect your business and legacy.