A Norwegian company’s modification to men’s athletic undies is long overdue, but the Patent & Trademark Office recently decided that the company can’t get it up over here in the U.S. And why are we left hanging, guys? Because of the product’s name of ?Comfyballs.?
According to The Telegraph, USPTO offered the following reason in its rejection of the company’s application for a U.S. trademark:
?Comfyballs means only one thing ? that a man’s testicles, or ?balls,? will be comfortable in the applicant’s undergarments. ? When used in this way, the word ?balls? has an offensive meaning.?
But the company’s use of the word, in both product name and description, seems more protectively defensive than offensive. The design of the undergarments keeps those tender organs away from the thighs, where they are ordinarily subject to accidental impact during physical activity and where they’ll accumulate more heat, too, which is known to reduce sperm count. Comfyballs pulls no punches when it describes those benefits, either:
?By placing your equipment in the PackageFront ?, you reduce heat transfer from your thighs to your balls. Colder balls may?improve sperm count, which can cause your future offspring to become smarter than they otherwise would have been.
By lifting your equipment away from between your legs, you reduce the risk of balls discomfort. You won’t have to manually adjust their position, which is a good thing, although you might miss it at first.?
So is use of the word ?balls? really that offensive in this manner, leaving Comfyballs with need to use a different name and description in the U.S.? Or is it just that USPTO has some penile envy? After all, Patent & Trademarks has allowed use of other suggestive and flat-out sexual terms in products.
The BleachBlack nail polish producer had no problem getting trademarks for its shades of ?Dickweed? and even ?Jizz? (described as ?a milky, pearlescent white?), for example, and NARS Cosmetics offers a few products in its ?Orgasm Collection.?
Then there’s that nifty jar-opening accessory dubbed ?I Need A Hand Job.? (Yes, that’s its actual product name.) USPTO had no problem with that one.
Quite similar to the jar opening tool is the set of leather work gloves using the trademark name of ?Hand Job.? USPTO is okay with this one, too, even despite its ?Better Than Nothin?? tagline.
And everyone knows that ?Save The Ta-Tas,? in both wordage and logo, got USPTO approval, as well.
USPTO even accepted registration of ?HandzOff,? which is the name applied to ? of all things ? a line of ?anti-masturbatory? products, including a cream that must be applied by hand. Of course, the product’s gag-gift, novelty status may be the basis for that (and even its chewing gum variety wouldn’t work for an average teenager, now would it?).
And the Patent & Trademark Office isn’t alone in such apparent penis envy. The FCC seems to have a problem with ?balls,? too, deeming it indecent for use on commercial radio and television when used to describe testicles. But also like USPTO, FCC seems to have a double-standard in the anatomical department; ?dick,? ?dickhead,? and ?pussy? are allowed when not used in sexual context. (But what other context could they be, though, especially in the form of insults, which is how those words are most commonly used in broadcasts?)
And if such double standards are applied to those words, then why don’t both USPTO and FCC allow use of ?f?k,? which has an almost infinite realm of uses and meanings? Sure, there’s that guttural use of the word as a verb to indicate sexual activity, but it’s also a noun (?you f?ker!?) and an adjective (?f?king idiot?) that are completely void of sexual context. It’s even used a positive compliment (?f?ckin? A!?).
But don’t hold your breath waiting for use of that word in any broadcast or product name, either. If USPTO won’t allow ?Comfyballs,? then it?won’t have the balls to allow any ?Big F?king Cheeseburger? from McDonald’s anytime soon.
And until then, gentlemen? Start looking for a pair of ComfyTesticles (or whatever product name the company will have to use).
What’s your take on USPTO’s uptight stand on Comfyballs? State your case on Liberal America’s Facebook page!?Sign up for our?free daily newsletter to receive more great stories like this one.
