Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

rurallib

(62,406 posts)
Thu Dec 11, 2014, 10:14 PM Dec 2014

No Comfy Balls for You America!

http://latest.com/2014/12/comfy-balls-america/
This is why we can’t have nice things in America, like comfy balls.

The Norwegian underwear brand Comfyballs has been banned from trademarking its brand in the United States because of its “vulgar” name.

<<snip>>
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office banned ComfyBalls from operating under that name, finding that, “in the context of the applicant’s goods… [Note: Yes, they really said "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… When used in this way, the word, ‘balls’ has an offensive meaning.”


more at the link
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No Comfy Balls for You America! (Original Post) rurallib Dec 2014 OP
Well, balls....nt Wounded Bear Dec 2014 #1
they look comfy don't they? rurallib Dec 2014 #2
And I've actually tried to defend this stupid-ass country to my European friends ? BlueJazz Dec 2014 #3
The US Patent Office obviously thinks it has LiberalEsto Dec 2014 #4
Every man should have comfyballs. In_The_Wind Dec 2014 #5
We appreciate the sentiment OriginalGeek Dec 2014 #6
a sentiment apparently not shared by the patent office rurallib Dec 2014 #7
what about Hot Pockets ? olddots Dec 2014 #8
is that a euphemism for genitalia rurallib Dec 2014 #9
But you can order them here: The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2014 #10
looked mighty expensive to me rurallib Dec 2014 #16
Yeah, 298 Norwegian kroner = about $40. Pricey for undies. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2014 #17
I wonder if those things combat 'bat wings' effectively? NightWatcher Dec 2014 #11
How about some comfy Schweddy Balls? Tom_Foolery Dec 2014 #12
So it would be OK with them if it did create a double entendre? But a product name petronius Dec 2014 #13
NattyNads. SunnySack. HappyHuevos. The Velveteen Ocelot Dec 2014 #14
Actually heard about these on Stephanie Miller yesterday rurallib Dec 2014 #15
Traditional: Nut Sack. nt sarge43 Dec 2014 #18
What about HappySack? meow2u3 Dec 2014 #20
"Americans love the sting of comfyballs." - George S. Patton Special Prosciuto Dec 2014 #19
 

BlueJazz

(25,348 posts)
3. And I've actually tried to defend this stupid-ass country to my European friends ?
Thu Dec 11, 2014, 10:52 PM
Dec 2014

Why did I even waste my time?

rurallib

(62,406 posts)
7. a sentiment apparently not shared by the patent office
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 04:51 PM
Dec 2014

uncaring, unfeeling bureaucrats if you ask me

NightWatcher

(39,343 posts)
11. I wonder if those things combat 'bat wings' effectively?
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:29 PM
Dec 2014

One of you guys will have to try them and get back to us.

petronius

(26,602 posts)
13. So it would be OK with them if it did create a double entendre? But a product name
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 08:44 PM
Dec 2014

that simply describes what the product (ostensibly) does is offensive?

Does that mean it would be OK with the office if they used something more formal than balls - HappyTesticles? CozyGenitalia? GLeefulGonads?

rurallib

(62,406 posts)
15. Actually heard about these on Stephanie Miller yesterday
Fri Dec 12, 2014, 10:19 PM
Dec 2014

and that was about the second question they had - after is that what I think it is?
Sure would be nice if we could ask the Trademark office or whoever hosed this up.

Latest Discussions»The DU Lounge»No Comfy Balls for You Am...