Pulsations Nightclub">

Cookie banner

This site uses cookies. Select "Block all non-essential cookies" to only allow cookies necessary to display content and enable core site features. Select "Accept all cookies" to also personalize your experience on the site with ads and partner content tailored to your interests, and to allow us to measure the effectiveness of our service.

To learn more, review our Cookie Policy, Privacy Notice and Terms of Use.

clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Want to Adopt Chippendales' Cuff-n-Collars Look for Your Own Exotic Dance Troupe? Now You Can Without Fear of Repercussion.

Image via <a href="http://www.pulsations-nightclub.com/encorepulsations/index.album/encore-pulsations-photos?i=40">Pulsations Nightclub</a>
Image via Pulsations Nightclub

Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.

Despite the fact that Chippendales guys nearly always wear the, uh, dance troupe's signature bowtie, shirt cuffs, and stretchy black pants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit says the company can't trademark these uniforms. Chippendales has been trying to trademark the look for nearly 10 years!

New York-based Chippendales, which filed the original trademark application in 2000, failed to prove that the bow tie and cuffs costume was distinctive, the court said.

The court noted that the Chippendales' expert witness acknowledged that the outfit was "inspired" by the Playboy bunny suit, thus stripping the Chippendales' Cuffs & Collar of the distinctiveness needed to get a trademark.

The Playboy bunny suit was trademarked in 1964 and expired in 2004, the court said. That costume is shirt cuffs, corset, tie, bunny ears and bunny tail.

· Chippendales fail at trademarking dancer's outfits [Consumerist]
· Chippendales stumbles in trademark attempt [Reuters]