SALT LAKE CITY – Shortly after the Utah Mammoth engaged in a lawsuit over a trademark dispute; the U.S. District Court recently denied a motion by the defendant, Mammoth Hockey, LLC for a preliminary injunction.
KSL Sports obtained a copy of the court ruling that came on December 23, 2025. In the filing, Mammoth Hockey, LLC sought an injunction preventing SEG Hockey, LLC and Uyte, LLC from any and all use of the UTAH MAMMOTH mark and logo of a mammoth’s head, including marketing and selling hockey related goods, apparel and accessories, including hockey bags, bearing the Accused Marks while legal proceedings were in process.
Why did the Utah Mammoth file a lawsuit against a hockey bag company?
Back in August, the NHL’s newest team entered a trademark lawsuit.
All of the new Utah Mammoth logos 🦣#TusksUp pic.twitter.com/XETeG6Qm1g
— Cole Bagley (@BagleyKSLsports) May 7, 2025
In an effort to defend the validity of their new name, SEG Hockey and the Utah Mammoth entered a legal battle with a “high-end hockey bag” seller known as Mammoth Hockey.
Why?
Despite originally supporting the Utah Mammoth name publicly on their Instagram account and even inquiring about a potential collaboration via LinkedIn, according to the filing, Mammoth Hockey threatened litigation in “some unknown forum, at some unknown time,” as outlined in the original lawsuit.
(Lawsuit Document) Plaintiff provides screenshot of a LinkedIn message from the Defendant’s co-founder, sent to Rachel Moffitt, assistant to the President of Hockey Operations for Utah.
According to the legal documents, The Utah Mammoth and SEG have requested that the courts settle the trademark issue under the U.S. Declaratory Judgement Act.
Essentially, they want to put an end to Mammoth Hockey’s litigation threats and settle this matter before it really begins.
“The uncertainty created by [the bag company’s] actions, which has persisted for months, with no action as of yet, has become intolerable,” the lawsuit states.
Notably, an exchange of letters took place between the two organizations in June as Mammoth Hockey alleged SEG’s s use of the Utah Mammoth mark as a violation of their trademark rights and demanded they “cease use.”
SEG then responded, “Noting that Defendant had previously expressed support for the UTAH MAMMOTH name; that the parties’ marks, goods, and services are different; and that numerous third parties use “Mammoth” as a trademark for bags and related goods and services,” according to the lawsuit.
Mammoth hockey followed up, claiming potential confusion between the marks.
“[It’s] 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,” the bag company stated.
Since then, Mammoth Hockey filed for a preliminary injunction in September of 2025 (a temporary court order aimed at preserving the status quo before a final judgment is made, preventing irreparable harm to a party involved in a legal dispute), which was then denied by Judge David Barlow of the United States District Court, District of Utah.
U.S. District Court denies Mammoth Hockey’s preliminary injunction against Utah Mammoth
Upon entering the lawsuit with the Utah Mammoth, Mammoth Hockey filed for a preliminary injunction.
These are generally requested in order to maintain the existing state of affairs and prevent one party from causing harm to another while a legal case is being resolved.
However, this is also generally an extreme measure and not easily granted.
In the case of Mammoth Hockey, they were denied an injunction as the District Court ruled in favor of the Utah Mammoth regarding “likelihood of confusion,” and “irreparable harm.”
What does that mean?
When it comes to assessing likelihood of confusion, a court will review six key factors including:
The Degree of Similarity
The intent of the alleged infringer in adopting its mark
Evidence of actual confusion
Similarity of products and manner of marketing
The degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers
The strength or weakness of the marks
In all six of the determining factors, the court ruled that Mammoth Hockey failed to prevail on its motion for a preliminary injunction.
“As a whole, the Marks (logos and branding) reveal significant differences,”The court said in the Preliminary Injunction documentation regarding the Degree of Similarity.
“Although both logos are mammoth heads, they are very stylistically distinct. Mammoth Hockey’s mammoth head is smooth, streamlined, and minimalist, while Plaintiffs’ mammoth head has jagged lines intended to represent the Wasatch Mountains; it also includes an outline of the state of Utah and a letter “M.” Both on initial and repeat consideration, these logos simply do not look similar. In sum, the court concludes that visually, the differences outweigh the similarities in the Marks enough that consumers are not likely be confused, even when the Marks are singly presented.”
As for irreparable harm, the court then ruled that Mammoth Hockey had not shown that it was substantially likely to succeed on the merits or that it would suffer irreparable injury if the motion was denied.
“Mammoth Hockey does not allege facts showing that its customer relationships have been harmed or otherwise establish how Plaintiffs’ alleged actions have harmed its goodwill and market position,” The court said in the Preliminary Injunction documentation.
“Therefore, Mammoth Hockey has not established that it likely will be irreparably harmed if Plaintiffs are not enjoined from use of the Accused Marks.”
Based on the court’s ruling to deny an injunction, the Utah Mammoth will be able to continue using the branding.
Utah Mammoth Issue Statement regarding court ruling
Due to the ongoing litigation, SEG is unable to provide a statement regarding the injunction.
However, they previously commented on the lawsuit saying, “The Utah Mammoth filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah seeking a declaratory judgment that use of the trademark Utah Mammoth does not violate any rights asserted by a third party.”
“Utah Mammoth and the NHL believe strongly that we have the right to use the name Utah Mammoth under federal and state law, and that our use will not harm the defendant or its business in any way. We have taken this action only after careful consideration based on the defendant’s position.”
Previously, Mammoth Hockey Co-Founder Erik Olson also issued this response to KSL Sports in regard to the lawsuit as a whole:
“I can tell you that Mammoth Hockey intends to vigorously defend the litigation recently commenced against it by Utah Mammoth of the National Hockey League and protect its longstanding trademark used in connection with the hockey goods it has manufactured and sold for the past ten years.”
While an official trial has not been scheduled, the earliest it could take place would be January of 2027.
Cole Bagley is the Utah Mammoth insider for KSL Sports. Keep up with him on X here. You can hear Cole break down the team on KSL Sports Zone and KSL 5 TV.
Take us with you, wherever you go.
