Suit Filed in Utah Over Male Chastity Belts

by Jason Fischer

A.L. Enterprises, Inc. (“ALE”), a Nevada corporation, sued a Canadian manufacturer of male chastity belts in Utah this week. ALE alleges that Latitudes International (“Latitudes”) has shipped products into the United States that bear ALE’s federally registered trademarks.

While this story would seem to be of a kind that would appear first on this blog, we were scooped by Mr. Gile over at Las Vegas Trademark Attorney. Respect.

Woody-001.jpg

“[I]t’s simulated wood design gives it a ‘warm, earthy feel.'”

As the owner of federal registrations for the trademarks “CB-3000” and “CB-6000”, to be used in association with devices conducive to male chastity, ALE has the right to prevent others from selling similar products in the U.S. under the same marks. Latitudes is accused of doing just that.

According to the complaint, Latitudes is selling counterfeit versions of ALE’s products at two websites, http://www.chastitydeviceformen.com/ and http://www.latitudes-international.com/. Indeed, the website does appear to be offering the same three types of “devices” that ALE sells and using the same trademarks to identify its goods.

Perhaps the most interesting detail in this story, at least to this observer, is that the USPTO has two separate classes of goods for:

  • “Devices conducive to male chastity, namely, chastity belts for men” and
  • “Adult sexual aids conducive to male chastity, namely, chastity restraints for men”

5 Responses to Suit Filed in Utah Over Male Chastity Belts

  1. Eric T. says:

    Perhaps the most interesting detail in this story, at least to this observer, is that the USPTO has two separate classes of goods…

    I would simply call them medieval torture devices.

  2. Clint says:

    Fight wood with wood?

  3. […] Suit Filed in Utah Over Male Chastity Belts « The Legal Satyricon […]

  4. Mark Alan Miller says:

    For fuck’s sake, couldn’t they just call them the CB-2500 and CB-5500 and be done with it?

    I crack me up.

  5. Tanner Andrews says:

    Not sure that the fact that it was brought in Utah explains everything, but it certainly does have some power of explanation.