Tampa and Toronto stage an intersquad scrimmage four times a year… powder blue versus royal blue will at least contrast a little.
Utah team nickname/colors/logo, mascot (and related marketing)
- Thread starter LadyStanley
- Start date
Tampa and Toronto stage an intersquad scrimmage four times a year… powder blue versus royal blue will at least contrast a little.
Bonk
Registered User
Do the pants they wear with that jersey say 'Pants'?
the big nobody
Registered User
I'm not gonna lie, I don't get it. I know you don't want to rush things so I can overlook the temporary, one-year jersey. And there are certain other elements of the team's branding and marketing that need a long(er) lead time to get going. But the name is inexcusable. It doesn't take months to come up with a team name. Any one of us could've come up with a halfway-decent team name over a couple of days and a handle of Kirkland brand vodka. Baffling.
LadyStanley
Registered User
So you want a sloppy logo? A cartoonish one? An unpleasant one? Creativity may have a deadline, but should not be rushed nor limited to the first iteration.
Many expansion franchises have over a year to put together their logo/nickname.
Heck, even the PWHL decided that a couple of months was too fast for all six franchises to have a good nickname/logo.
In addition to selecting nickname, colors, manufacturing will take a while to ramp up for a new product. (I recall the pressure the Sharks faced circa 1990 with going with teal as their main color, after consultation with Lands End, as the manufacturer would have to have an entirely new shade of "blue" rather than reusing existing one. You do recall that the Sharks lead the league in merchandise sales their first year in part due to the unique/new-to-league color scheme.)
And with the change of manufacturers (in name at least for the pro version, and for all the fan versions) of jerseys, 31+Utah need new jerseys. Lots of summer work to have jerseys ready for September.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
We're not talking about punching out a logo on a day's notice. It really can't be that difficult for a design studio to make a logo in the span of a couple of weeks to months. And heck, even if it is too fast of a time table, for some reason, then that's an argument for a pair of temp jerseys, which they're already doing, but not against picking a definitive name. They could be the Yeti or the Blizzard or whatever and just have a wordmark like the Rangers as a single year thing, and nobody would blink an eye.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
But a name is one of the hardest things to ever change too. You'll see teams adopt new jerseys every once in awhile, maybe along with new colours of new logos - but changing the name entirely? That hardly ever happens outside of relocations.
The New Orleans Pelicans are literally the only example I can think of right now - and even that is tied up with relocation drama (with the name Hornets being first from Charlotte, and then picked up again by Charlotte once New Orleans dropped it).
Wait, I wasn't thinking of offensive names that teams were almost forced to change. Bullets to Wizards, Redskins to Commanders, Indians to Guardians, Eskimos to Elks, Colt 45s to Astros. But those are a whole different category.
But anyways - goes to show why you really want to get your name right.
There's also all kinds of legal implications. Can you get a trademark on the name? What about internet domains? Do you have to negotiate with trademark holders with similar sounding names in unrelated areas (if Yetis - do you need to negotiate with the Yeti drinkware people?).
We saw this with Vegas - even having lots of time to decide on a name they still ran into litigation with the Army Golden Knights Parachute team.
I'm kind of partial to the name Outlaws personally. But if you search "Outlaws" at the USPTO trademark search system you get 4000+ hits. If you search Outlaws Hockey you find inactive trademarks for the San Angelo Outlaws and Colorado Outlaws, both former hockey teams.
If you go for something generic like "Utah HC" - you can definitely get the trademark, but it'll be very weak because anyone can use the name "Utah" for anything they'd like - you just can't add the letters "HC".
So there's lots to consider, because the name is the one thing you want to make sure you get right.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
The Smith group has trademarks (or has filed for trademarks) on all of their finalists, because if they didn't than they could've had squatters galore jump on that to lock them down. It's almost a sure thing that there won't be legal loopholes to consider on that front, as the names are either unique or generic enough that adding "Utah" in front of it makes it definitely unique from any other entity currently or previously existing.
And sure, some teams have been guilty of jumping into bad names, but Utah has already been up front on their list and which ones are the frontrunners. All delaying a final announcement is doing is letting factions form and get more entrenched between the various options and will likely lead to more folks being disappointed that their repeatedly voted for option didn't win.
If they want to be the Yeti, just be the Yeti and quit doggin'.
And funnily enough, Vegas choosing that specific color modifier is what caused the infringement issue with Army. Had they just gone with the Knights, that would've been way too generic for any team to claim exclusive ownership of it (Vegas claimed that London didn't give permission, but London claimed they were never asked and in no way do they hold exclusive rights to the word for any sports branding anywhere). The Golden Knights was a specific thing, though. Heck, the Black Knights would've been less of a hassle and Army has an active sports angle there with there team, as the concept of "black knights" greatly predates Army football.
And sure, some teams have been guilty of jumping into bad names, but Utah has already been up front on their list and which ones are the frontrunners. All delaying a final announcement is doing is letting factions form and get more entrenched between the various options and will likely lead to more folks being disappointed that their repeatedly voted for option didn't win.
If they want to be the Yeti, just be the Yeti and quit doggin'.
And funnily enough, Vegas choosing that specific color modifier is what caused the infringement issue with Army. Had they just gone with the Knights, that would've been way too generic for any team to claim exclusive ownership of it (Vegas claimed that London didn't give permission, but London claimed they were never asked and in no way do they hold exclusive rights to the word for any sports branding anywhere). The Golden Knights was a specific thing, though. Heck, the Black Knights would've been less of a hassle and Army has an active sports angle there with there team, as the concept of "black knights" greatly predates Army football.
Last edited:
When the San Jose Earthquakes relocated to Houston, the team was named -also was the leader in their poll- Houston 1836, complete with a logo. Backlash ensued, they changed the name to Houston Dynamo and obviously changed the logo.
So this hits on a few things.
-Name being hard to change. They did it twice, along with logo, in roughly a three or so month span.
-Obviously hits on, allegedly or otherwise, "offensive" names, and why you want to get it correct the first time.
-At some point you need to sh*t or get off the pot. You can indefinitely wait on the 'correct' name or having any name at all. That doesn't mean it's correct or standard operating procedure.
The general timeline, for decades and decades, is "name the team before they play their first game." There's nothing wrong with people having that expectation, regardless of any outliers such as, "but the PWHL ... " as if they're batting a thousand with their single-entity decisions.
Yukon Joe
Registered User
I hadn't even considered the cross-cultural side of things as well.
One of the most famous (non-sports) example was Chevrolet naming their car the Nova. Except in Spanish "No Va" means "no go" - not a positive association for a car. So yes, you have to consider that side of things also. (edit: snopes says this story isn't true, but it's too good not to use as an example anyways)
Yeah, I'm not worried about the PWHL example. But I will say trademark law and the value of intellectual property has grown exponentially over the years.
Going back 25 years or so - the CFL expanded to Baltimore and they picked the name "Colts". As in "Baltimore Colts". I hope they had enough brain power then to have done a trademark search and found it had expired, but even with that the Indianapolis Colts sued them and forced a name change. That's exactly the kind of mistake you want to avoid.
If you go back far enough though you'll find that team names weren't picked by an owner, they just grew organically. My favourite story, although there are many, is the Winnipeg Blue Bombers. Formed in 1930 they were originally just called the Winnipegs, or the Pegs for short. In 1936 however a reporter for the Winnipeg Tribune called them the "Blue Bombers" - a reference to boxer Joe Louis, the "brown bomber", and the name stuck.
Sticking with Winnipeg - I think I heard on a podcast (in talking about Utah) someone bring up that when Winnipeg selected at the draft in 2011 right after relocation 1st round pick Mark Scheifele had to wear a black jersey with an NHL logo on it, and not a "Jets" jersey - and that was somehow a shame. 13 years later, with Schiefele playing his entire career in Winnipeg - do you think he gives a damn what jersey he wore on his draft day?
There are plenty of examples of organic names - the New York Rangers are nicknamed that because their first owner was named “Tex” — Tex’s Rangers. The Pittsburgh Alleghenies were accused of stealing or “Pirating” a player from another team. The Cincinnati Reds are a derivative of Red Legs, because as the first professional team, the players wore red stirrups.
We all want a name now because that’s what we’re used to in this day & age. Letting Utah and the PWHL grow names organically is fine, and probably makes for a better fit than something arbitrary - heck, look how awful the original MLS and WNBA names were for bulk branding. Not many of those names still exist anymore.
No Fun Shogun
34-38-61-10-13-15
Worth pointing out that a load of those organic names are from a bygone age when sports weren't huge businesses, branding wasn't that important, and names for teams were actually made up on the fly by newspaper writers.
My favorite team is the Chicago Cubs, fka the Chicago Orphans fka the Chicago Remnants fka the Chicago Colts fka the original Chicago White Stockings, and I'm pretty sure I left a name or two out. Names changed really without much thought put into it for a while.
But that's not what's happening here. This is just the world's longest name the team contest, except I don't think there are any winners. This is as organic as astroturf on top of concrete.
That being said, there is an organic recent name... the Kraken. That was clearly caused by a groundswell of online fan support that became impossible to ignore, so Seattle management just said, "screw it" and went along with the meme. Their next logo should just be Liam Neeson's face.
My favorite team is the Chicago Cubs, fka the Chicago Orphans fka the Chicago Remnants fka the Chicago Colts fka the original Chicago White Stockings, and I'm pretty sure I left a name or two out. Names changed really without much thought put into it for a while.
But that's not what's happening here. This is just the world's longest name the team contest, except I don't think there are any winners. This is as organic as astroturf on top of concrete.
That being said, there is an organic recent name... the Kraken. That was clearly caused by a groundswell of online fan support that became impossible to ignore, so Seattle management just said, "screw it" and went along with the meme. Their next logo should just be Liam Neeson's face.
Last edited:
Begs the question, when did naming the team become a thing? I am guessing the 60s? That’s when expansions and rival leagues started popping up in every sport.
LadyStanley
Registered User
KevFu
Registered User
For those of you saying Utah's had "months" to get the branding going and come up with something better than a placeholder name, I would like the record to reflect that both Seattle and Vegas announced their branding about 32 months after their first "Serious talks" with the NHL about a team.
If Utah took 32 months, they'd unveil their brand right before the 2026-27 season.
So maybe they're not going that slow. It's been less than six months for them.
If Utah took 32 months, they'd unveil their brand right before the 2026-27 season.
So maybe they're not going that slow. It's been less than six months for them.
No, but they have sold hats that say "Hat", and knit winter hats that say "Winter Hat" (the latter as an add-on for certain ticket packages). They leaned into it. Because ultimately the name of the state and the hockey sweater do have a shared origin (both named after the Channel Island of Jersey, which is where the original type of sweater used for sport originated). But everyone really does call the state just Jersey.
Last edited:
Why is the comparison expansion teams and not the very long history of teams relocating and coming up with completely new brands in that same off-season? I know the NHL is using the legal fiction of this being an expansion team, but that doesn’t mean we have to pretend that’s what happened here
Ryan Smith was doing the NHL a favor by buying the Coyotes. If he wants more timeto come up a team name and branding, why shoukdn't the NHL give him that time?
KevFu
Registered User
Well, the comparison is because the internet was around for the expansion teams and not really detailing everything for the 1990s relocations. And the internet plays a MAJOR ROLE in the trademarking process that's become more and more problematic. The internet opens up commerce from local to global. In the 1990s, the University of Tulsa couldn't object to the Carolina Hurricanes because Tulsa did zero business in Carolina. But in the internet era, you had claims against Vegas because "if you google Black or Golden Knights... you're taking business away from us."
The Thrashers relocation was not, as you say "a completely new brand," as they were reviving the Jets brand, which was possible because the NHL owned the Coyotes, who owned the Jets old brand.
And one obvious factor now is that the NHL was working with real companies for jerseys and not Fanatics, which had to tell NHL teams not to rebrand for three years, and started the MLB season with teams only having two of their jerseys for the first two months of the year before they added jerseys 3-4-5 of their sets.
Last edited:
Voight
#winning
Avs + Coyotes had less time than Utah did and still came up with names.
(I omitted Hartford cause the team didn't change owners, and the Jets, well that was obvious)
LadyStanley
Registered User
sneakytitz
Registered User
Anyone else see this? May be nothing or it may be a legit slip of the tongue.
kickback256
Registered User
Pretty sure it’s nothing. Of course, he’s more privy to the behind the scenes information, but it’d be a REAL fast way to lose goodwill out here if it came out that they’d picked the name and were just going through the polls for publicity.
