Utah HC is released on initial brand applications for all finalists by the name of the team, including Yeti

While working to choose and set up a permanent team name, the Utah Hockey Club is confronted with obstacles to obtain brands for each of the six options which it previously identified as finalists.

This includes the name considered by many the current favorite – the Yeti or the Yetis – but also the Blizzard, the Hors -La -Loi, the Mammoth, the Venom and the HC.

Copyrights out of the six names have recently been refused by the Brevet and the United States brand in non-final decisions. Utah has three months from the dates of refusals to respond to various concerns and move forward with the brand process. The gigantic refusal came in November and the rest in January.

The team believes that enough time remains to cross administrative formalities and decides on a permanent identity before starting the 2nd year.

“Since the acquisition of the UTAH team in the NHL, we carefully assess the possibilities of permanent identity of the team, while working in the complicated world of brands and intellectual property,” said the President of the Chris Armstrong team in a press release. “We will continue to involve the community in the last stages of the name and brand process and are entirely on the right track with our plans to announce a permanent name and identity before the NHL 2025-26 season.”

In an action published on January 9 by the USPTO, as reported for the first time by the local KSL press station, the names Yetis and Yeti were refused due to the “probability of confusion” with others Note recorded, including the Yeti Cooler Company. Venom and Blizzard were refused on the same field on January 9 and 16, respectively.

In an action of January 10, Utah Hockey Club (HC) has been refused because the “brand is mainly geographically descriptive”.

Meanwhile, outlaws and mammoth are facing at least obstacles, because these names have been deemed to have no contradictory brands that would prohibit recording. Office errors will have to be eliminated so that UTAH secures these brands.

The USPTO responded to the original deposits made by the club last spring after Ryan and Ashley Smith bought and moved the coyotes of Arizona to an incredibly short notice.

The answers do not represent the final decisions of the examiner on these applications and do not eliminate any of the potential name options at this stage. They are simply intended to provide direction on the challenges that must be overcome with each.

It should be noted that no conflict has been found with a number of potential names not included among the finalists previously identified by the organization of Utah, in particular Canyons, Blast, Fury, Squall, Swarm, Ice and Caribou .

But there is still time for UTAH to solve the pending problems and to secure brands to one or more of the desired choices. The team asked for the comments of their fans while shrinking the options last spring and found this “invaluable” entry, according to Armstrong.

“We have always intended to leave our season an identity as a Utah hockey club, the performance of the team and the incredible answer of our fans hold the conversation throughout our inaugural season”, he added.

The Vegas Golden Knights were faced with similar brand challenges before their second NHL season after being founded as an expansion team in 2017.

This organization ended up concluding a coexistence agreement with the US military in July 2018 which enabled the hockey team to file the duties of name by using the nickname.

(Photo: Bruce Bennett / Getty Images)