Yeti or not? Trademark lawyers answer the questions facing Utah Hockey Club’s future name.

No matter how Utah Hockey Club is playing, one consistent question remains from its fans: When will a team name be announced and what will it be?

While there’s not a clear answer, let’s take a look at the work Utah Hockey Club has done to create its official team identity and what is left to do before the 2025-26 campaign begins.

When did the team apply for trademarks?

Utah has made it clear that an official name for the franchise will be chosen by next season and many — fans and players alike — have favored “Utah Yeti.” It was one of the top picks in Smith Entertainment Group’s online survey of fans last spring.

At Utah’s media day in September, team president Chris Armstrong said the organization is still working on the logistics of creating its final brand.

“It’s been very clear to us what our fans would like us to be called,” he said. “Now it’s a matter of trying to explore exhaustively all avenues to try and deliver that. You can imagine it’s a complicated process from a legal, trademarking, and intellectual property perspective. We’re in that process now of determining what is achievable in that realm.”

So, what exactly does that process look like?

Utah Hockey Club wasted little time getting things rolling for its inaugural season and beyond. Following SEG’s purchase of the Arizona Coyotes on April 18, a company called Uyte, LLC — which was created in early April — filed 20 trademark applications with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office between the dates of April 16 and April 23.

The names filed for trademark included the finalists in the fan survey, which closed on June 20 — Utah Hockey Club, Utah HC, Utah Yeti, Utah Mammoth, Utah Ice, Utah Outlaws, Utah Blizzard and Utah Venom.

The applications filed were for trademark-bearing clothing items and general merchandise, entertainment and hockey exhibitions. Because the applications are for “standard character marks,” if approved, the owner can create any design using the name. Others cannot create their own designs.

In short, it allows the team freedom to do whatever it wants regarding design.

Can Utah be penalized for submitting multiple intent-to-use applications?

Uyte, LLC submitted the names under a 1(b) application, also known as an intent-to-use application. 1(b) allows a company to apply for a trademark without having tangible proof of use in commerce. It recognizes the period between coming up with the name, registering it, putting that mark on a product and eventually selling it.

But Utah Hockey Club cannot truly intend to use all the names it filed. In a different circumstance, that could affect the trademark approval.

“The interesting thing about 1(b) is it is specifically designed not to be a placeholder,” said John H. Dollarhide, a Nashville-based attorney who works for the Butler Snow law firm’s litigation group.

“The trademark office has designed these intent-to-use applications to prevent this shotgun approach of ‘I’m going to put all my ideas out there and prevent somebody else from registering while I’m trying to figure out which one I’m going to use.’ That’s exactly what the franchise has done, but in all likelihood, there aren’t going to be any ramifications from that.”

The reason there likely won’t be ramifications for Utah Hockey Club is because it is not in a market with other hockey teams trying to name their franchises the same things. Even if there were a company called the Utah Yetis or the Utah Blizzard, if it’s not a hockey organization active in the same marketplace, there would not be conflict.

“You can have two people with the exact same name for a trademark and they’re both valid,” said Jonas Anderson, a patent law professor at the University of Utah. “For example, Delta Airlines is a trademark, but I could start a Delta basketball company. It would not infringe on Delta’s trademark at all. … They can both exist at the same time because they’re in different fields. They’re not overlapping in the market.”

Does the Yeti cooler company pose a trademark problem?

Possibly.

Yeti the cooler company and Yetis the hockey team usually would not cause conflict on the trademark field. Each function in separate markets — one for drinkware and outdoor gear and the other for sporting events.

“You can have two people with the exact same name for a trademark and they’re both valid,” Anderson said. “For example, Apple. Apple the computer company and Apple Records — the company that made the Beatles records. They can both exist at the same time because they’re in different fields. They’re not overlapping in the market.”

However, Yeti recently partnered with the NHL to introduce custom drinkware with teams’ graphics lasered on. On the Yeti website, fans can select their NHL team and pick from all the company’s water bottle and tumbler designs to put the hockey logo on.

Utah Hockey Club is not a drinkware organization, but may want to make water bottles and cups with its new logo. Yeti is not a hockey team, but now caters to an NHL audience. There is overlap.

Whether that completely blocks the trademark is probably unlikely, but it’s an added obstacle in an already difficult process.

What benefit does Utah have with its early trademark filings?

The timing of Utah’s trademark filings in April works in its favor.

An individual in Utah filed a trademark for Utah Yetis on June 6. Another company called Wasatch Sports Factory had a pending application for Utah Yetis but abandoned it on Oct. 16 so it has a dead status now. Both were filed after Uyte, LLC’s submission — there’s somewhat of a first come, first serve nature to this process.

“If they go with the Utah Yeti, for example, they won’t have a whole lot of trouble getting rid of these recently filed Utah Yeti trademarks because they can argue, I think with some reason, that they were filed just in anticipation of the hockey team using the name,” Anderson said.

Individuals or companies who filed for “Utah Yetis” or any of the team’s other potential names after the franchise submitted its applications would not have priority to the name. In some situations, people “squat” on trademarks that they think a big business or team wants to use. However, with the intent-to-use application, Utah Hockey Club was able to get ahead of that issue.

“The benefit of a 1(b) application is that once you finally do start using the mark in commerce, the registered owner of that mark gets the benefit of the earlier filing deadline even though they weren’t making bona fide use of the mark at that time,” said Brande L. Boyd, a member of Butler Snow’s Business Services and Finance, Real Estate, and Restructuring Practice Groups.

“It relates back to your initial filing. And that’s a great benefit for potential infringers who may have come up after. … You will win in an action when it comes to priority.”

Is there a timeline for a name announcement?

In terms of the timeline for when the team will officially be approved to use its chosen name, Boyd said the trademark office has sped up the process. At this time last year, it took approximately 18.6 months to review initial applications; the office has gotten it down to 7.5 months.

In October 2024, they were reviewing applications that came in March. Boyd said she would expect some sort of action or notice that asks the team to show use in April 2025.

“The reason that I think the team should narrow it down by that time is because once you receive Notice of Allowance, the attorney then has to file a Statement of Use to show that there is a bona fide intent-to-use of a certain trademark,” Boyd said. “I can imagine that their attorneys will not feel comfortable filing that unless the team has narrowed down a name.”

The team could have decided on its final name months ago and is now just waiting to get approved — that is not something that would show up on public records at the trademark office, though.

“If they have selected a name, it is completely private,” Dollarhide said. “Nothing filed with the trademark office — at least as far as I can tell — nothing that they have filed would indicate any selection. Or frankly, any narrowing down.”

Armstrong told NHL.com that the franchise would be finalizing its decision “early in the new year.”

But a public announcement likely won’t come until after the season ends.

“That’s what we’re thinking now,” Armstrong told NHL.com. “We’ve been saying we don’t want to take the wind out of our sails on Season One. We’ve got such a great response in our inaugural season and a lot of momentum, and we want the focus to continue to be on this inaugural season and the efforts our players are putting into making it a successful season. We don’t want to dominate that conversation with what we might be or not be next year. I think that’s important.”

So, it remains a waiting game for Utah Hockey Club fans to know the official name of their franchise. But, from the applications filed, it appears the team is ready to create its brand once given the go-ahead.

Editor’s note • This story is available to Salt Lake Tribune subscribers only. Thank you for supporting local journalism.