Well, this sucks.
Scandinavian luxury underwear brand Comfyballs recently applied to release its products in the U.S., but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused to issue a trademark on grounds that the company’s name is too “vulgar,” the Daily Telegraph reports.
The company, which was established in Scandinavia in 2013, has extended into Australia, New Zealand and the U.K. What makes Comfyballs so comfy, you ask. Well, the luxury underpants incorporate a unique design called PackageFront™, which is supposed to increase comfort by “reducing heat transfer and restricting movement.”
Sounds divine.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
The company was hoping to come to America next, but the folks at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have put a halt to that, saying “in the context of the applicant’s goods… Comfyballs means only one thing–that a man’s testicles, or ‘balls,’ will be comfortable in the applicant’s undergarments.”
“The mark does not create a double entendre or other idiomatic expression,” the office continued. “When used in this way, the word, ‘balls’ has an offensive meaning.”
The ruling, it should be noted, comes after by One Million Moms lobbied against the brand for its “indecency.”
Anders Selvig, the brand’s founder, has called for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s guidelines to be reviewed.
“The trademarks ‘Nice Balls’ and ‘I love my balls’ have recently both been approved by the USPTO,” he noted. “Luckily, Europeans have a softer view on what is deemed to be vulgar and the EU allowed Comfyballs to trademark without hassle earlier this year.”
Here’s hoping this gets straightened out soon. We want some Comfyballs.
h/t: UPI
Related stories:
One Million Moms Wants You To Badger Kohl’s Into Not Advertising On Creepy TV
If You Need Help In The Underwear Department, Your Prayers Are Answered
Trippy
Dumbest thing I’ve read in weeks. It doesn’t surprise me that One Million Moms is behind it, either (if true). Those bitches are bitches. I guess Republicans are still running the US patent office.
DCFarmboi
PTO doesn’t ban any product from being sold in the USA. Not having a trademark just means they can’t sue others using the same term.
NoCagada
Expect more censorship with the republicans in power…and an erosion of YOUR rights.
Kieru
@DCFarmboi: Thank you! I read this title and the beginning of this article and was just shaking my head the entire time. Clearly the editors at Queerty don’t bother with any sort of fact-checking on what it means to have a trademark denied.
vive
@Kieru, @DCFarmboy, yes, but way to miss the point…
KnittaPrince
If interested, send a message to [email protected] and ask that they reconsider. Personally, I don’t find the word “balls,” in ANY context, to be particularly vulgar or indecent. And c’mon…if we don’t counter One Million Moms ridiculous puritanism, who will?
Jamie
Once again, One Million Moms oversteps its bounds in its oodball effort to “protect the children.” What a miserable bunch that must be.
hyhybt
Countless products are marketed under different names in different countries. Why not call them something else?
QJ201
Cohoenays
DarkZephyr
Guys, lets not credit 1 Dozen Moms with this one, this isn’t their doing, they are a joke and if they think they had anything to do with it, their delusions of grandeur will just get more intense.
MarionPaige
The USPTO is a clerical operation. It is possible to establish trademark rights by simply using a mark in business with TM next to it. While it is true that registration of a mark affords you certain benefits, enforcement of trademark rights is ultimately on the individual and the validity of a trademark is ultimately established by the courts.
Increasingly, I think, the USPTO is becoming aware of the fact that a lot of people are abusing the trademark application process as part of cybersquatting schemes and that the USPTO has not kept pace with the realities of business on the internet. For example, someone just spent $23K applying for trademarks on things like ford.com, apple.com, google.com etc.
The job performances of clerks working for the USPTO is based on how many trademarks they process, Denying a trademark claim on something vague like “vulgar” just allowed that particular clerk to go on to process other stuff quicker.
wld8hrt
Balls are not offensive. They’re hot! Somebody at the patent office must think so too. Besides, one million moms wouldn’t be moms without them…
Kieru
@vive: That’s just it though, the ‘point’ of the article is completely invalidated by their statement that the product has been BANNED in the United States. It hasn’t. A clerical office has made a decision that in NO WAY prohibits the underwear from being marketed or sold in the United States. It prohibits them from claiming TRADEMARK on their product name in the US.
Now their decision is a pretty stupid one… but what Queerty is claiming vs. the reality? They aren’t even in the same ballpark.
Kieru
@wld8hrt: The phrase “Save the Ta-tas” is trademarked for use on T-Shirts, etc… and Ta-Tas are a vaguely vulgar term for breasts so I think on that basis they ought to have a pretty easy appeal process. If colloquial terms for breasts are allowed to be trademarked it stands to reason those for testicles should be fair game 😀
JPinNC
I’m not clear why OMM would have anything to say. Do they think they will encounter that brand at Walmart? Target? nooooo. Hey One Million Moms, stay out of my underwear!
MarionPaige
I had an interview with the USPTO years ago and what was really scary was that the stupid goofy looking dickhead speaking to the applicants about what goes on at the USPTO informed us that he was a patent examiner for medical devices.
I'm Black, and HIV-Positive.
@Trippy: @Kieru: @DarkZephyr: Not that any of you are even mildly likable people.