Page 25 - Katten Kattwalk and Kattison Avenue - Winter 2026 - Issue 5

Under these statutes, they may be able to recover
damages for their reputations being “diminished by
a false association with an entity who has proven a
continued pattern of deplorable disregard towards
independent artists and street art.” 21

It is hard to gauge, especially at this early stage of
the litigation, whether DISA, SNOK and RENNEE will
prevail. If the long string of similar lawsuits by street
artists against fashion brands like Moschino, Roberto
Cavalli, North Face and Puma are any indication,
this case will likely settle out of court before a judge
decides the extent of the artists’ rights. Still, the
22
case may open a Pandora’s box of unresolved legal
questions and better define the legal landscape
faced by foreign street artists pursuing copyright
infringement in the United States. And that possibility
is exciting enough to titillate seasoned intellectual
property scholars and attorneys alike.

1 See Smith v. Vivienne Westwood, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01221 (C.D. Cal. Filed
02/12/25).
2 See id, ECF No. 11, ¶ 3.
3 Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 857 F. Supp 1355, 1359
(N.D. Cal. 1994).
4 In re Art & Architecture Books of the 21st Century, Case No. 2:13-bk-14135-RK,
2023 Bankr. LEXIS 441, *136 (C.D. Cal. Bankr. Feb. 15, 2023).
5 See 17 U.S.C. § 102.
6 Smith, supra note 1, ECF No. 11, ¶ 1 and ¶ 4.
7 See Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2012).
8 Chelsea Kim, An Examination of Graffiti Protection and the Social Obligation
Theory of Property, 36 Emory Int’l L. Rev. 539, 563 (2022).
9 See Prod. Pit Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Ent. Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-04286-AB-E, 2025 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 80484, *16 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2025) (citing Lahiri v. Universal Music &
Video Distribution, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1176 n. 4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2007)).
10 See Court Warm v. Innermost LTD, Case No. CV 21-4402-MWF, 2023 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 82232, *8 (C.D. Cal. Aprl. 13, 2023) (citing Hasbro v. Sparkle, 780 F.2d 189
(2d Cir. 1985)).
11 See Blanch v. Koons, 467 F. 3d 244, 246 (2nd Cir. 2006).
12 Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 529 (2023).
13 Id.
14 Id. at 539.
15 Smith, supra note 1, ECF No. 11, ¶¶ 19-20.
16 17 U.S.C. § 202.
17 See Falkner v. GM, LLC, 393 F. Supp. 3d 927, 930 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018).
18 See 17 U.S.C. § 120(a); see also Leicester v. Warner Brothers, 232 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir.
2000).
19 Tierney v. Moschino S.p.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-05900-SVW-PJW, 2016 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 195333, *13 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016); Williams v. Cavalli, Case No. CV
14-06659-AB (JEMx), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34722, *7 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015).
20 Id.
21 Smith, supra note 1, ECF No. 11, ¶ 20.
22 See Louise Carron, Street Art: Is Copyright for “Loserstm”? A Comparative
Perspective on the French and American Legal Approach to Street Art, N.Y. St.
B.J. 34, 38 (2019); Britney Karim, The Right to Create Art in A World Owned by
Others - Protecting Street Art and Graffiti Under Intellectual Property Law, 23
U.S.F. Intell. Prop. & Tech. L.J. 53, 70 (2019).W
Smith v. Vivienne Westwood, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01221

25