Mammoth Hockey bagmaker asks 10th Circuit to block Utah team from selling bags under same name

Utah Mammoth the hockey team sued Mammoth Hockey the bagmaker in 2025 after the senior mark-holder asked the team to stop selling bags that confused customers.DENVER (CN) — Four days before the Utah Mammoth kick off the 2026 season against the Colorado Avalanche at the Mile High City’s Ball Arena, attorneys representing the Beehive State team defended its name before the 10th Circuit at the Byron White U.S. Courthouse.“There are many, many third parties that are using ‘mammoth,’ including sports teams, hockey teams and bagmakers, so we made a reasonable judgment that we could use it too,” argued attorney Bruce Ewing, who represents Utah Mammoth’s parent company, Uyte LLC.The Beehive State’s professional hockey team announced its name in May 2025, opting to play as the Mammoth after learning that its first pick, Yeti, was likely to be challenged by the popular cooler brand.Claiming ownership of a senior mark, Portland, Oregon-based company Mammoth Hockey sent the Utah hockey team a cease-and-desist letter in June 2025. In addition to filing trademark applications, Utah Mammoth sued Mammoth Hockey to protect its new name.On Dec. 23, 2025, Donald Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge David Barlow denied Mammoth Hockey’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The Portland bagmaker appealed.Although Mammoth Hockey is known for its high-end sports bags that cost upward of $300, Utah Mammoth also began marketing bags ranging from $83 to $199, along with jerseys, hats, pickleball paddles, Yeti brand coolers and other merchandise.“The plaintiff’s case is based entirely on reverse confusion, which occurs when the more powerful, more affluent junior user enters the market and drowns out the smaller senior competitor,” argued attorney Gerald Griffin on behalf of Mammoth Hockey.Griffin argued Utah Mammoth adopted its name with disregard for the fact that his client was already using it.“Did the alleged infringer act carelessly or culpably in selecting its mark?” asked Griffin, who practices with Carter Ledyard in New York. “If you look at the evidence in this case, there’s ample evidence they did, and the district court never addressed whether there was bad faith in selecting the mark.”U.S. Circuit Judge Scott Matheson asked whether the evidence supported an injunction at this stage in the proceedings.“Why wouldn’t that make the question of an injunction immature?” the Barack Obama appointee asked.Griffin said if Utah Mammoth continues to saturate the market with its brand, the damage will be done.“The law requires them to do a reasonable amount of research, and the record will show they knew we were there,” Griffin said. “They have a duty to reach out to us during the investigation of their name.”U.S. District Judge David Urias, visiting from the U.S. District of New Mexico, rounded out the panel alongside U.S. Circuit Judge Gregory Phillips. Urias was appointed to the bench by Joe Biden and Phillips by Obama. The court did not indicate when or how it would decide the case — or if the judges will tune into Sunday’s game.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads