Utah Hockey Club down to final 3 names: Hockey Club, Mammoth, and Outlaws (upd: Wasatch already nixed)

  • Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Someone needs to explain to me how some company blocks Yeti but the NHL can not block a company from selling STANLEY CUPS?!!!!

Stanley 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.
 
Utah Outhouse
PDKBn2a.png
 
Last edited:
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?
Case in point, Sharks have never won a Cup. Penguins and Ducks have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weztex
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?

That comment about the league temporarily forcing a name change was 100% facetious (not serious).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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.
 
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.
The Broons are bears, though.
While Lions (if the logo represented the locale) would be a mountain lion, aka cougar or a Panther. Tigers it is
 
Last edited:
Stanley 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.
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 alone
 
  • Like
Reactions: Llewzaher and BTO
The Utah {whoever cares just get this done} were better off as the Clubs but whatever. Mammoth is silly but I wish they change the scheme up from just ice blue and black. Just a really bizarre process all because of a cooler system saying "no" due to trademarks.
 
University of Utah would like a word.

 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad