First Yeti. Now Mammoth. Utah’s NHL franchise is already in its second trademark dispute. The first dispute came before the team even had an official name. In early 2024, Smith Entertainment Group (SEG) applied to register “Utah Yeti” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On the surface, the name seemed like the perfect fit. It was memorable, distinctive, and great for merchandise. Unfortunately, in March 2024, the USPTO refused the application. The refusal cited a “likelihood of confusion” with YETI, the well-known cooler and drinkware company.

In trademark law, products do not have to be identical for a conflict to exist. It is enough if the goods or services are related in a way that might cause consumers to believe they come from the same source. Different companies can feature a similar name if they are clearly in different fields, but it seems likely the sports apparel was too similar to the YETI products.

A USPTO refusal for “likelihood of confusion” is not always the end of the road. Even when the examining attorney believes two marks are too similar, the parties involved can sometimes negotiate what’s called a coexistence agreement or consent agreement. This is a written deal where both sides agree that each can use the mark, often with certain restrictions. For example, using it only for specific products, in certain geographic areas, or with clear branding differences to avoid confusion. SEG tried to negotiate an agreement with the cooler company, but neither side could come to an agreement. At that point, SEG had no choice but to abandon the “Utah Yeti” application and begin the search for a new name.

After an unprecedented naming process that put the decision in the hands of fans, Utah’s NHL franchise went through four rounds of public voting that started in mid-2024 and ran into early 2025. The list of twenty potential names was narrowed down to three finalists Utah Mammoth, Utah Outlaws, and Utah Hockey Club. More than 850,000 votes were cast, and ultimately, Mammoth won decisively in the final round.

In May 2025, the franchise officially unveiled its new identity as the Utah Mammoth. For the first month, the rollout appeared smooth. Then Mammoth Hockey, a smaller company that has been selling hockey bags and other Mammoth-branded gear since 2014, sent a cease-and-desist letter to SEG. The company argued that the team’s name would likely confuse consumers into thinking the two were connected, warning that “it is highly likely that consumers will confuse the two marks, risking our client’s business and operations. Hockey enthusiasts who pledge support for a team other than Utah Mammoth will not purchase goods from our client due to the consumer’s mistaken belief that such a purchase would support a rival team.”

Mammoth Hockey does not have a federal trademark registration for the “MAMMOTH” name. Instead, they are relying on common law trademark rights, which are based on use of the trademark in commerce within a particular geographic area. You may only be able to enforce those rights in the specific areas in the United States where you use the trademark if the use covers less than the entire country.

On August 1, SEG filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City seeking a declaratory judgment that its use of “Utah Mammoth” is lawful and does not infringe any trademark rights. SEG also pointed to Mammoth Hockey’s earlier public support for the name, including a Facebook post highlighting “Mammoth” as a favorite to become the new name of the team and prior messages from its founder about a possible collaboration.

The bigger takeaway, however, is the importance of securing your trademark early. If Mammoth Hockey had filed for a federal trademark back when they began using the name in 2014, they would be in a much stronger legal position today. Federal trademark registration gives you the legal presumption of ownership nationwide, the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with your goods or services, and a stronger position in disputes like this one. Without a registered trademark, they lack the full protection that comes with federal rights, especially when facing a well-funded professional franchise.

The Utah Mammoth are unlikely to be forced into another rebrand. A more realistic outcome is a settlement or coexistence agreement that allows both parties to continue using their names within defined boundaries. This serves as a clear reminder, filing a trademark is not just a formality; it is a vital step in protecting your brand, reputation, and long-term business. While this situation may not end in a dramatic courtroom battle, it will be worth watching how the dispute is ultimately resolved.