The Norwegian manufacturers of Comfyballs underwear said the U.S. patent office told them the brand name is too “vulgar” to trademark.

Company founder Anders Selvig said officials filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office earlier this year with an aim toward bringing the products to the North American market, but the office’s reply said the name was too “vulgar” to trademark.

“The mark does not create a double entendre or other idiomatic expression… When used in this way, the word ‘balls’ has an offensive meaning,” the office said in its reply to Comfyballs.

The ruling came after lobbying against the brand by One Million Moms, a wing of the American Family Association aimed at fighting “indecency…”

Selvig called on the patent office to review its guidelines.

“The trademarks ‘Nice Balls’ and ‘I love my balls’ have recently both been approved by the USPTO,” Selvig told The Telegraph. “Luckily, Europeans have a softer view on what is deemed to be vulgar and the European Union allowed Comfyballs to trademark without hassle earlier this year.”

Comfyballs is named for its “PackageFront technology,” which the company says creates “ultimate comfort by reducing heat transfer and restricting movement.”

If you thought the Christian Taliban was going to mellow out anytime soon – have another think. With a Republican-controlled Congress we will be seeing support for the Morality Police in every possible form for the next couple of years.

Don’t be surprised if they bring back the stocks and the mandatory wearing of Scarlet Letters.

  1. spsffan says:

    Eh! Corporate trademarks aren’t protected free speech. They are a license to use monopoly power, granted and backed by the state.

    I’m by no stretch of the imagination a prude, more like the opposite, but there are bigger fish to fry.

  2. ± says:

    But Duluth Trading can protect their Ballroom® Jeans. I guess you need to know who and how much to pay.

  3. MikeN says:

    No complaints about taking away the Redskins trademark, which has been around for 80 years or so. But something that doesn’t meet your juvenile tastes, that has got to go!

  4. Hanes says:

    Yea. Dew-Absorbant, Downy, Wide-Stance Nutsack Cradles™ didn’t swing well with repubs either… They ate them up after we called them ‘Depends’ though.

    Authorized branding is all about appealing to the current impositor demographic (and their mums).

  5. That's What She Said says:

    “Where’s the beef?” (that’s what she said)

    “I just shipped my pants!”

    “Chock Full O’Nuts”

    “Come now.” (that’s what she said)

  6. ± says:

    [off topic, sorry]

    Ahhhhhh. Is it me, or has the air in here fresher since midnight 30Nov?

    Disingenuous conservatives like pedro take note.

    And I’m guessing, honest, misguided liberals like Phydeau have nothing to worry about. They are entertaining. As is broken keyboard ECA and fundy Alfie in his different guises. Their distinction is honesty in their positions (but I could be wrong).

  7. Peppeddu says:

    So, by the same token the trademark “Coke” should be revoked because it’s also the name of am illegal drug, thus immoral?

    Or perhaps if it’s not, I can trademark the name LSD, Marijuana, Ecstasy, etc and sell edible goods with those names.

    So which one is it?

  8. Mitt Ster says:

    Hey! Corporations are people too my friend! People either have freedom of speech or they don’t.
    It’s not like yelling FIRE in a crowded building. MOMS!!


Bad Behavior has blocked 6794 access attempts in the last 7 days.