Normally no, but here the "owner" was claiming it is the artist's work, not a facsimile or reproduction. So this is an exact case of the normally theoretical ill that trademark and brand related law is supposed to protect against: something that is honestly confused with the work of a manufacturer with a substantial cost to that manufacturer.

Try doing this at the border with a "rolix" and that offended manufacturer has rights to protect their interests not a responsibility to show up to convince customs that your rolix is a real rolex from back when they had trouble spelling. So I'd say this is an example of different justice for different relative social status.