Natter is a partner in the New York office of Haug Partners LLP. His practice focuses on all aspects of global trademark strategy, procurement, management and enforcement. Ben implements client-specific approaches for protection of intellectual property rights around the world. On any given day, Ben’s work will find him enforcing client rights throughout countries spanning the globe with local authorities, courts and associates.
Ben draws on years of experience developing and managing global intellectual property portfolios and creating and effectuating tailored anti-counterfeiting programs for numerous well-known brands. His specialties also include copyright prosecution and enforcement, global online marketplace infringement matters, domain disputes, UDRP proceedings, GTLD matters, DMCA matters and social media infringement.
For more information or to contact Ben, please visit his Firm Profile Page.
An increasing trend in copyright infringement suits filed in the United States has tattoo artists bringing suit against entertainment entities, and in some cases against the tattoo bearer themselves, for the reproduction or recreation of tattoos they created. Most commentators would likely conclude that tattoos are eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act. However, it is important to note that a distinction can be made between the copyright in the design of the tattoo and the copyright in the tattoo as it is reproduced on the body of a person
The USPTO issued Examination Guide 01-17 on Monday, June 26, 2017, entitled “Examination Guidance for Section 2(a)’s Disparagement Provision after Matal v. Tam and Examination for Compliance with Section 2(a)’s Scandalousness Provision While Constitutionality Remains in Question.” This Guide explains how trademark applications with arguably disparaging or scandalous content will be examined in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal… The Supreme Court’s ruling in Matal cleared the way for a slew of new and possibly offensive trademark applications of a kind that have been consistently denied since 1946. Whether this protection will be extended to a wider category of potentially incendiary marks hinges on the Federal Court’s pending review of Brunetti.