Will the Utah have to rebrand again?

35 comments
  1. I don’t think they’ll have to that lawsuit is dumb as hell. The hockey bag company is just doing it for publicity and money.

  2. If only they picked a name based on the unique history and culture exclusive to Utah… Oh wait they don’t like talking about that

  3. If people read the article it seems based on just that article alone that this is a longer grab from the Oregon company.

    The bag company owner knew about the name and commented about how it would be a cool marketing story for the tan to use their bags then waited ask this time to fill a suit.

    Other companies such as Yeti stepped in during the naming process to voice concerns and that name was eliminated.

    Seems like this is a settlement cash grab

  4. I think a fair settlement would be for mammoth to stop selling hockey bags.

    They’re talking about “goodwill”… how about some goodwill towards an existing small business to help grow the sport.

  5. I’m pretty sure corporate will just

    1.Change the name, sell new jerseys with a new logo.

    2.Start a hate campaign against the owners of trademark

    3. Backlash devastates that company or persons life

    4.Offers trademark back

    5. Change the name back and sell a slightly altered jersey.

  6. I really liked the Mammoth name, so kinda shame.

    Although, sticking with Utah Hockey Club isn’t all that bad? (I guess when you say it next to Mammoth it is lol)

  7. If they would have just picked Stormin’ Mormons like we all suggested, they wouldn’t be having these problems.

  8. I have the solution to this conundrum. The Utah Mammoth move to Quebec and become the Nordiques. Problem solved.

  9. IANAL, but I suspect “we should win this case because it would suck a lot for us if we lost” is not a very convincing argument in court.

Leave a Reply