Kukuxumusu’s artistic universe is featured on countless sweatshirts and T-shirts throughout Spain. A blue bull with yellow horns and a sheep with bulging eyes and pointy ears are just a few of the main characters in this artistic universe, in which the creators have skillfully used humor and a very distinctive style to depict everyday situations through anthropomorphized animals.
Kukuxumusu, a word that means “flea kiss” in Basque, was founded in 1989 as a small project by three friends with a talent for drawing and a vivid imagination. Although they started out selling T-shirts, the brand has grown so much over the years that today the distinctive characters of the “Kukuxumusu universe” can be found on just about any object you can imagine: bottles, bibs, pillboxes, umbrellas, socks, and even Facebook stickers.
Well, in late 2015, one of the company’s founders and its artistic director—Mikel Urmeneta—left to launch a new solo project. Under the name Katuki Saguyaki (which in Spanish would mean something like “cat meat, mouse delicacy”), the former partner launched a graphic design and illustration business focused primarily on textiles. Apparently, many of the designs in the Katuki Saguyaki collections are very similar to those originally created by Kukuxumusu, the rights to which had remained with the company when Urmeneta left. This led Kukuxumusu to file a lawsuit against Mikel Urmeneta and his partners for intellectual property infringement.
The defendant’s defense emphasizes the necessary similarity that must exist between the designs, given that the artist and creator of the designs is the same person, who inevitably imprints his personal style and signature on any creation that comes from his hand. According to the defense, the similarities are abstract in nature, but there is no plagiarism of specific, identifiable works.
In light of the parties’ arguments, but above all of the expert analysis of the works in question, the Court finds that Kukuxumusu’s intellectual property rights have been infringed, as the defendants’ drawings—beyond the similarity in style and technique—constitute reproductions and adaptations of specific works without the plaintiff’s consent.
The ruling is interesting from a legal standpoint because of the very situation being adjudicated: an artist who, by assigning all economic rights to many of his works, appears to have his creative freedom restricted from continuing to create works that share the same style, technique, and subject matter. The defendant’s argument is precisely this: how can an established artist let go of a professional legacy spanning nearly 30 years? In this case, the argument did not hold up, since the issue is not limited to a matter of style, but rather involves actual self-plagiarism of specific works.
Be that as it may, everything points to the fact that this cat-and-mouse game has only just begun…