WeaponOfChoice
Registered User
- Jan 25, 2020
- 720
- 392
Someone needs to explain to me how some company blocks Yeti but the NHL can not block a company from selling STANLEY CUPS?!!!!
couldnt they do like hockey sticks instead of tusks, and shooting with a stick instead of a random shadowy face, lol I see that ape with the mountains and I just think about the boobs head from little nickyThese are the three logos/names, no real leaks yet but these are very close to the actual ones confirmed by people who went to the games.
View attachment 971012View attachment 971013View attachment 971015
Case in point, Sharks have never won a Cup. Penguins and Ducks have.I never really understood that reasoning. A fierce or speedy team name won't make the team fierce nor fast. Why not go for a name that carries historic or local significance, or simply something people like, instead of trying to characterize the individual players with something they're not anyway?
You think they will want to take those titles away from the bigger market areas like the Vancouver Canucks, New York Rangers & Philadelphia Flyers who creating all that fuzz on their own?
So was mine.That comment about the league temporarily forcing a name change was 100% facetious (not serious).
The mammoth logo is good as a logo, but not as a logo for a hockey team (maybe for a camping outfitter company or something - like Mammoth Outfitters or some such). The Outlaw one is God awful (although I do like the name Outlaws). The Wasatch one is just moronic, as it were.These are the three logos/names, no real leaks yet but these are very close to the actual ones confirmed by people who went to the games.
View attachment 971012View attachment 971013View attachment 971015
The Broons are bears, though.The mammoth logo is good as a logo, but not as a logo for a hockey team (maybe for a camping outfitter company or something - like Mammoth Outfitters or some such). The Outlaw one is God awful (although I do like the name Outlaws). The Wasatch one is just moronic, as it were.
Don't know what's wrong with lions and tigers and bears (oh my) for names of sports teams anyway. Utah Bears. There, done.
I can't believe that executives at Yeti coolers didn't leap all over this opportunity to let it happen, there would be enormous sales annually from brand collaborations and the arena aloneStanley has existed for longer than the NHL has owned the Stanley Cup, for one.
That doesn't make this any less ridiculous, but you can't compare old filings with modern ones. I don't understand why Yeti didn't see the cross-marketing appeal, but I also didn't like the name Yeti for a hockey team so...meh.
Had the NHL began in the 90s the Stanley Cup would 100% be named something bland and trademarkable.
Could have badass pregame intro song as they take the ice.
Could have badass pregame intro song as they take the ice.
These are the three logos/names, no real leaks yet but these are very close to the actual ones confirmed by people who went to the games.
View attachment 971012View attachment 971013View attachment 971015
Which will be the nickname for their arena.Utah Outhouse
University of Utah would like a word.Utah Utes
University of Utah would like a word.
That is gorgeousLegit. I’m in. They could be like the dark knights to the Vegas’ golden knights with ties to the military.
View attachment 971359
You'll note that Stanley never actually uses the term "Stanley Cup" in trade. They call them tumblers. There's a reason for that.Someone needs to explain to me how some company blocks Yeti but the NHL can not block a company from selling STANLEY CUPS?!!!!
How does it not?Outlaws in Utah just doesn't add up and I hate the HC thing so Mammoth would be the best and make a great logo too.
They could also go back in history and have Keith Tkachuk as their mammoth mascot right?
View attachment 971415