I don’t think the skiing connection is a reason to reject the name. Getting too reductive with team names gets silly pretty quickly.

New Jersey: Naming a team after our dark lord Lucifer? Probably not a good idea.

Carolina: Naming a team after one of the worst and most common natural disasters, and one that causes billions of dollars of damage in the US every few years. Why?

Los Angeles: Naming a team after one of the most exploitative and harmful titles in history, a member of the monarchy? I question this choice.

Chicago: Appropriating the team name from the people whose land you stole a few hundred years earlier is a bold move, cotton.

Anaheim: Named after a children’s movie? Really?

St. Louis: Named after another, competing form of night life/entertainment? Sounds like free advertising for your competitors! Next!

Edmonton: Named for people who callously mine an earth-killing fossil fuel? No thanks!

The best team names are unique or the first to ever have that idea. That’s why most of the original teams have the best names in hockey (Red Wings, Maple Leafs, Bruins, Rangers, etc). Beyond the original teams, I like the Flames team name the best.

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen what’s been trademarked (Venom, Fury, Blizzard, Hockey Club, HC, and Yetis) and so Double Blacks is not even in the running.