The NHL Is Having Trademark Trouble With Its Newest Team In Utah
from the off-the-crossbar dept
Like the other major sports leagues in America, the NHL has not been immune from engaging in IP protectionism in the past. The league has been relatively touchy when it comes to local businesses simply cheering on their local hockey teams, for instance, and has also tried to keep apps that report on NHL content from using “NHL” as a keyword, claiming that is trademark infringement. On the flip side, and more recently, the NHL has also been on the receiving end of some trademark troubles. You may recall that there was that whole issue with the Las Vegas Golden Knights and the trademark opposition from the U.S. Army that was resolved in some nebulous settlement.
Well, now it’s happening again, this time for the team that the NHL relocated from Arizona to Utah. Currently called the Utah Hockey Club, the team released a poll with a bunch of potential names to the public. Three of them, including what appears to have been among the favorites, were denied by the USPTO.
According to a report from Ryan Miller of KSL in Salt Lake City, the name “Utah Yetis” was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office due to a “likelihood of confusion” with the Yeti cooler brand.
A non-final action on the application was issued on Jan. 9 and Utah HC has three months to issue a response with more evidence, according to Miller. He adds that the names “Utah Blizzard” and “Utah Venom” were also denied for similar reasons. Utah Hockey Club, the team’s temporary name, faces a separate challenge due to the fact that “the applied-for mark is primarily geographically descriptive of the origin of applicant’s goods and/or services,” Miller reports.
This is quite silly, don’t you think? How in the world are an NHL team and a cooler and coffee tumbler brand in any way indistinguishable? Is the concern that coolers are cold and so are hockey rinks? Or is it the licensing deal that the NHL has with Yeti to produce a handful of custom products, like drinkware? At most, assuming the team applied for the mark for merch or whatever that Yeti already has a mark on, the team could still proceed with trademarking its name for the team itself. That licensing deal can’t really be such that it precludes the NHL from naming a team. And, even if that were the case, I sure would think this fight would mark the end of that licensing deal once its term expires.
As for the Blizzard or Venom, neither of them strike me as the names of famous sports teams. The closest I can get to Blizzard is the Colorado Avalanche.
If the team name ends up being chosen simply because it wasn’t challenged, that would be too bad.
Miller reports that the names “Mammoth” and “Outlaws” did not face a challenge from the patent office. The non-final action for “Outlaws” was issued on Jan. 9 and is active for three months but the non-final action for “Mammoth” was delivered on Nov. 5, meaning only one more month remains before that application is abandoned.
Tick-tock, I guess, but the fact is that the Utah Yetis name sounds awesome and is awesome. It is also absolutely not going to somehow cause the public to think that the Yeti cooler people are now owners of an NHL franchise. And we know it won’t cause any “false association” with the NHL, since the company already has that licensing deal in place that creates a real association.
So what are we doing here?
Filed Under: coolers, hockey, likelihood of confusion, trademark, uspto, utah yetis, yetis
Companies: nhl, utah hockey club


Comments on “The NHL Is Having Trademark Trouble With Its Newest Team In Utah”
Yeti as a noun
The Yeti is a longtime term in Asia for what in the Americas we call “the Abominable Snowman.” A trademark for this term would only be appropriate for specific documented uses of a particular item, such as, e.g. a cooler.
Utah comes from the Native American Ute tribe name, and isn’t a trademark eligible name… as it’s the name of a region. If I can’t trademark “Arizona” “United States” “Germany” etc. then I can’t trademark “Utah.”
So Utah Yetis — if you were a rube ready to be “misled” by marketeers (like the current president of the US) — would be some product like “abominable snowmen produced in the Ute territory”. That’s not very compelling but the USPTO is known for being stupider than anyone reading this forum.
And… your team name identifies your team and need not be trademarked. The whole IP thing is a scam to snuff our merch competition.
Going to go for “The choice of the name of the team should not be based on possible lack of ability to trademark it” which… the article says quite clearly.
Best wishes.
E
Re:
You are sometimes allowed to trademark a generic term when used in a specific context. You seem to be arguing that an approval for “Yetis” would be wrong because it would prevent anyone from using the “yeti” word in general, but that’s not how trademarks work. In this application, a trademark would be preventing one from starting their own hockey team called the “Yetis”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Utah team names
The Wives
The Temple Garments
The Massacre
Re:
The Magic Underwears
DO NOT USE THE NUMBER 8 IN COMMERCE!!!
https://www.si.com/nfl/ravens/news/baltimore-ravens-lamar-jackson-trademark-dispute-cowboys-troy-aikman#:~:text=Through%20his%20attorney%2C%20Jackson%20filed,breakdowns%20and%20so%20much%20more!
And here I thought Dale Earnhardt owned the rights to this number.
“Who is number one?”
“You are, number six.”
E
Re:
No, Dale Earnhardt owns the style of the number.
Utah Dry; probably to be disputed by Canada, eh!
Utah Desert; that would make the players “deserters”?
Don’t use outlaws. A certain motorcycle club might sue
Isn’t the word “blizzard” owned by Dairy Queen [tm], much like some parcel company owns the colour “brown” and some glass fibre insulation company owns the colour “pink”?
Re: Trademark for Brown
Trademarks don’t work this way and the real problems are the modern “must get IP first” and the USPTO obliging.
No company owns this color. Before I go into that though:
A tradeMARK is a unique identifier for a company in a specific field of commerce. For example, the Cleveland Browns have been using their name and logo and colors since 1946 and have a trademark for that for their sport and their merch/swag since 1983. They do not own “Browns” and if you wanted to open up “Browns Brown Boots” and have your own logo and colors and in the category of “footwear” AND actively used it in commerce you’d get it.
United Parcel Service has trucks in a particular shade of brown. However, that’s not enough to prevent anyone else from painting their delivery vehicle in the same color. To get a tradeMARK they’d have to include a “sample” which is their logo (“UPS”) in the yellow on brown print in the EXACT SAME FONT.
That FONT thing is also what causes companies not to change their logo for decades, because it’s not just “retooling the labels we print” but also rebranding the items and getting the new trademark.
Here are almost 40 trademarks for “Brown”:
https://www.trademarkia.com/search/trademarks?q=brown&codes=031
As you also mentioned “pink” there are almost 200:
https://www.trademarkia.com/search/trademarks?q=pink&codes=031
Readers here (except for a previous thread on Blake Lively) are generally able to perform their own searches…
Colors aren’t owned nor by themselves trademarked. As in all things, the USPTO is not run by geniuses, so errors enter into the data. That’s why there’s a challenge process.
The NHL aren’t necessarily the bad guys because their lawyers are doing what every other lawyer is doing — acquiring IP “because gotta have IP.” The USPTO sometimes obliges.
As Glen Kirchner says… Justice Matters.
Re: Re:
I don’t know if you care to draw a distinction between a trademark and a service mark, but UPS has absolutely trademarked their shade of brown, and would be within their rights to go after you for painting your delivery truck that color.
https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=2901090&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, UPS can sue for someone else using that exact shade of brown in commerce, they can’t sue for using every shade of brown. Just an FYI.
Stick with it
The temporary name of Utah Hockey Club, patterned after soccer/football teams, should be made permanent. It would start a new trend. But then again, when your logos and merch start displaying “UHC” you will go up against United Health Care. Never mind.
To deny the NHL a trademark for Blizzards I can understand, but Yeti? They make coolers in colors other than white.
The Utah BZOFBTL
The obvious solution is to do what Amazon resellers do and just use a bunch of random letters as your brand name. Last week, I bought JHEKJ branded scissors and a KTOJOY bottle opener.
I’m sure the good citizens of Utah would be more than happy to cheer the BZOFBTLs onto the ice. Well not the BZOFBTLs. That random string of letters has already been trademarked.
Re:
Didn’t EXXON already try that?
Except they’re not. Coolers are so called because people put ice in them to keep drinks cold, but the insulation in them can also keep things hot if need be, just like a vacuum flask keeps liquids either hot or cold.
Blozzard
But see https://greenbayblizzard.com/
The cooler brand isn’t even the first commerce-related “Yeti” that I think of: It’s also the main sub-brand of microphones from Logitech (or, specifically, its Blue division).
https://www.logitechg.com/en-us/products/microphones.html
Utah Monsters. That won’t bring a lawsuit…
Re:
Think again.
Re: Re:
That’s the joke.
Petard + hoist
Perhaps the USPTO has observed intellectual property bullying carried out by the NHL (eg strikes for YouTubers running fanzines) and is holding them to a higher standard.
That’d be a great policy – first TM granted on the basis we assume you’re a reasonable person/organisation – but if you use it to fuck around, then you’re gonna find out when you come asking for the next TM.
The answer is Jazz and Yeti. Jazz and Yeti.
What are two things that have absolutely nothing to do with Utah?