A Mammoth Trademark Dispute: A Clash of Common-Law Rights and Pro Sports Branding

When the NHL’s newest franchise in Salt Lake City unveiled its permanent identity as the Utah Mammoth, it was supposed to be a moment of clarity. After months of speculation and temporary branding as “Utah Hockey Club,” the Smith Entertainment Group finally planted its flag with a name, colors, and logo that it believed would carry the franchise into its future.

Ironically, almost as soon as the new identity went public, the franchise found itself staring down a different opponent, not on the ice, but in court.

The Dispute Emerges

Enter Mammoth Hockey LLC, an Oregon-based company that has been manufacturing hockey bags and related gear since 2014. Though it never obtained a federal trademark registration, the company claims common-law trademark rights in the “Mammoth” name, citing years of use in commerce within the hockey space.

In June 2025, Mammoth Hockey sent a cease-and-desist letter to the NHL club, warning that the “Utah Mammoth” name and branding risked confusing consumers into believing that the two entities were related.

Rather than backing down, the franchise took the offensive. On August 1, 2025, Smith Entertainment Group and UYTE, LLC filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, asking a judge to confirm that their team’s name and logo do not infringe on Mammoth Hockey’s rights.

Key Legal Issues

This dispute raises several legal issues that go beyond just hockey fans and merchandise:

• Common-Law vs. Federal Registration: Trademark rights in the U.S. can arise from actual use in commerce, even without a federal registration. Mammoth Hockey has leaned heavily on this doctrine. The Utah Mammoth, however, argue that federal protection and distinct branding give them the upper hand.

  
  

• Likelihood of Confusion: The heart of any trademark dispute is whether consumers are likely to be confused. Does a hockey bag company operating primarily online or in retail channels conflict with a professional NHL franchise selling tickets, jerseys, and fan gear? Courts will weigh the overlap.

  
  

• Market Expansion: Even if the two don’t directly compete today, what happens if Mammoth Hockey grows into apparel, or if the NHL team launches its own line of bags and gear? Judges often look at whether brand owners might reasonably expand into each other’s spaces.

What makes this case especially interesting is Mammoth Hockey’s prior stance. Reports indicate that the company originally expressed support for the “Mammoth” name and even floated the idea of collaborating. Only later did its posture shift to opposition. That inconsistency may weigh in the franchise’s favor, especially if evidence shows the team relied on the company’s earlier signals in moving forward with the branding.

Lessons for the Industry

This isn’t just a squabble between a local bag maker and a pro franchise. It underscores broader themes for general counsel across sports and entertainment:

• Do the Clearance Work: Even massive organizations can end up in disputes if they underestimate the reach of smaller companies’ common-law rights. Clearance searches should go beyond the federal registry.

  
  

• Brand Expansion is Predictable: Courts expect brands to grow beyond their immediate products. A General Counsel should always think two or three moves ahead…a bag company today can be an apparel company tomorrow.

  
  

• Perception Matters: Mixed messaging from a potential challenger (like initial support followed by litigation threats) can create legal leverage, but it also complicates negotiations. Documenting every communication becomes critical.

What’s Next

As of mid-August, Mammoth Hockey has been served but no hearings have been scheduled. The case will likely hinge on whether a court believes consumers could mistake a professional NHL team for an equipment bag maker, and how much weight to give to Mammoth Hockey’s years of use versus the franchise’s new high-profile identity.

For now, the Mammoth are set to skate into their inaugural season under their contested name. Whether the courts allow that name to stick long-term remains to be seen.

Stephon Burton is a DC and PA licensed attorney with Sneakers & Streetwear Legal Services, a Business and Intellectual Property law firm focusing on Fashion, Sports, and Entertainment. He can be contacted via email at stephon@sneakerlegal.com, or on LinkedIn and X (formerly Twitter).