Background
This is the post-verdict chapter of one of the art world’s most consequential intellectual property disputes. Robert Indiana (1928–2018) was one of America’s most recognised Pop artists, best known for his stacked “LOVE” sculpture and print series—a design so iconic it has appeared on postage stamps and in public squares worldwide. Morgan Art Foundation, which manages rights to Indiana’s work, sued art publisher Michael McKenzie (operating as American Image Art) for years of allegedly unauthorised reproduction of Indiana’s works, including the LOVE imagery and other compositions.
In April 2026, a Manhattan jury delivered a landmark verdict: $102.2 million in damages, broken down as $89 million for tortious interference with Morgan’s business rights, $2 million for copyright infringement, $6.2 million for trademark infringement, and $5 million in punitive damages. (See LexSummary’s prior coverage of the jury verdict.) With damages resolved, the remaining question was whether the court would also grant the equitable relief that money alone cannot provide: a permanent injunction.
McKenzie opposed the injunction, arguing that the $102.2 million verdict was itself an adequate remedy and that a permanent injunction would be overly broad—effectively erasing his entire art publishing business. He also contested Morgan’s request to seize his existing inventory and the “ghostwriter” signature machine he had used to replicate Indiana’s signature on works.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Rochon issued the permanent injunction. The four-factor test for a permanent injunction under eBay Inc. v. MercExchange requires: (1) irreparable injury; (2) inadequacy of legal remedies such as damages; (3) balance of hardships favouring the plaintiff; and (4) public interest not disserved. The court found Morgan satisfied all four factors.
On irreparable harm and adequacy of damages: while the $102.2 million verdict was enormous, damages are inherently backward-looking—they compensate for past harm but do not prevent future infringement. Without injunctive relief, McKenzie could resume or continue publishing Indiana’s works, forcing Morgan to litigate new damages each time. The court found ongoing unauthorised reproduction of an artist’s legacy constitutes the kind of reputational and market harm that money cannot adequately redress.
On the balance of hardships: the court weighed McKenzie’s loss of his art publishing business against Morgan’s interest in protecting the integrity and market value of Indiana’s artistic estate. A party who builds a business on another’s intellectual property without authorisation cannot claim hardship from being required to stop—the hardship is self-inflicted.
The injunction permanently prohibits McKenzie and American Image Art from reproducing, creating derivative works of, distributing, marketing, or selling Robert Indiana’s artistic works, including his LOVE series and related imagery.
Key Takeaways
- A large damages award does not automatically preclude a permanent injunction in copyright and trademark cases—courts will still issue injunctions when there is a credible risk of future infringement and damages are inadequate to provide full relief.
- A defendant’s argument that a permanent injunction “destroys” their business carries little weight when that business was built primarily on the unauthorised use of another party’s intellectual property.
- The eBay four-factor framework for injunctions applies in copyright and trademark cases just as in patent cases; rights holders must demonstrate each factor but, on these facts, it was readily satisfied.
- Artist estates and foundations should pursue both damages and injunctive relief—damages compensate past harm, but only an injunction prevents a persistent infringer from simply resuming after paying a judgment.
Why It Matters
The combination of a $102 million verdict and a permanent injunction represents a total legal defeat for McKenzie, and a landmark enforcement win for the Morgan Art Foundation. For the art market, this ruling sends a strong signal that unauthorised reproduction of a major artist’s body of work—even when the artist has passed away—will face both crushing financial consequences and categorical prohibition. Rights holders and licensing organisations managing significant artistic legacies will point to this case as a template: pursue both damages to compensate the past and an injunction to protect the future.
The case also reinforces that courts will look skeptically on infringers’ hardship arguments. The principle that “no one can profit from their own wrong” applies with full force here—the infringer’s loss of business cannot outweigh the rights holder’s interest in controlling one of America’s most recognisable artistic legacies.
Surfaced via Law360 IP.