With three months remaining before the 2025 NHL playoffs, the Utah Hockey Club finds itself in an uphill battle for postseason positioning. The club’s inaugural season has energized fans across Salt Lake City and beyond, despite beginning the season with an arena in need of renovations and a placeholder name. However, the club was dealt a significant blow thanks to a recent decision by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), that denied fans what would have undoubtedly been one of professional sports’ coolest and most unique club names: the “Utah Yetis.”
On January 9, 2025, the USPTO rejected the Utah Hockey Club’s trademark application for “Utah Yetis,” citing a likelihood of confusion” with existing trademarks owned by YETI Holdings, Inc., the popular cooler and outdoor gear company. The decision undoubtably dashed the dreams of club management, who had already begun imagining the merchandise opportunities and logo that would accompany the mythical mountain-dwelling namesake. Much of the NHL fanbase widely expected the name to be chosen, with even the club’s forward and captain, Clayton Keller, saying “it sounds like it’s going to be the Yeti.”
At the heart of this rejection lies the USPTO’s concern that consumers might confuse Utah Yetis hockey merchandise with products from YETI Holdings. Part of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1052(d), prohibits the registration of a trademark if it so resembles a mark already registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States, that it is likely to cause confusion, mistake, or deception among consumers regarding the source of goods or services. This provision is commonly referred to as a “likelihood of confusion” refusal.
In trademark law, the core concern is whether a proposed mark could potentially confuse consumers. While Yeti Coolers is primarily known for its premium insulated drinkware and coolers, the company has expanded into apparel and accessories, holding numerous trademarks covering these categories in both standard and stylized formats. The USPTO’s decision reflects an understanding that consumers encountering “Yeti” branded clothing might reasonably be confused about whether such items originated from the cooler company or the hockey club. Despite representing different industries at a surface level – professional sports versus outdoor equipment – the overlap in merchandise categories created the legal conflict that led to the rejection.
Furthermore, when evaluating the “Utah Yetis” application, the USPTO determined that the geographical descriptor “Utah” functioned as a generic element, making “YETIS” the dominant component of the proposed mark. When evaluating trademarks the USPTO assesses whether a term is generic based on how it is perceived by the relevant public. For geographic terms, this means that they are generally seen as describing where something is rather than what it is or who makes it. In this case, the term “Utah” functions primarily to indicate that the team is based in the state of Utah, rather than providing distinctiveness that would differentiate it from other “Yeti” trademarks. The USPTO explicitly noted in their ruling that even the singular form “Utah Yeti” would not resolve the conflict, as the “singular or plural form of a registered mark is essentially identical in sound, appearance, meaning, and commercial impression, and thus the marks are confusingly similar.”
Following the USPTO’s refusal, the Utah Hockey Club attempted to negotiate a coexistence agreement with Yeti Coolers, which would have potentially allowed both entities to use their respective marks within defined parameters. However, these negotiations proved unsuccessful. Mike Maughan, an executive with the club’s parent organization, Smith Entertainment Group, acknowledged the strength of Yeti Coolers’ trademark position, stating, “They have a unique and strong trademark on anything published or used with Yeti.”
The rejection does not necessarily represent a final determination, as the USPTO issued what was described as a “nonfinal office action.” The club had three months from the January 9 refusal date to present additional evidence and arguments or request an extension to keep the application alive. However, it appears the organization has decided to move forward with alternative naming options. On January 29, the club announced that the fans attending their following four home games in late January and early February could vote for a permanent identity. The final three options voted on included the existing Utah Hockey Club, Utah Mammoth, and Utah Outlaws.
For now, fans will likely have to wait for the postseason to find out what was ultimately chosen for the club currently in branding limbo. Bureaucratic red tape struck again and took away what would have been one of the most unique club names in professional sports.
Calvin Holle is a 2L at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law. He can be found on LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/calvinkyleholle/).
Sources