Sid said:
In music copyright law class, I learned that you cannot copyright or claim rights to a song name or album name. It looks like RHCPs are shit out of luck on this one. Sucks to be them.

This case has nothing to do with copyrights. Unfair competition, dilution of value, and unjust enrichment are classic direct and derivative trademark claims. Theoretically, anything can be TM'd: A word, name, design, logo, sound, shape, configuration, or even a fragrance.

To prove TM infringement, RHCP must basically demonstrate that the term is a "source indicator." To do so, they have to present evidence that most people associate the term "Californication" with the RHCP. And it wouldn't hurt to demonstrate that the show and the album are very similar products (both popular media/entertainment mediums) and a consumer would think they are somehow related. To a Wisconsin boy, "Californication" is a pretty arbitrary/fanciful term that I would initially associate with RHCP. When I first saw the name of the show, I thought of the RHCP album. So they are far from shit out of luck.

I didn't think of them at all until someone else brought it up, then I thought "oh, that band that used to be popular." I don't think I could have come up with their name on my own.

Right. So in order to demonstrate customer perception, Showtime would want as many people, who like you do not associate "Californication" with RHCP, to respond to that effect in a consumer test/survey that asks what "Californication" means to them. And RHCP would want responses from the "someone else[s]" to whom you refer in order to demonstrate the potential for confusing the album and the show as being somehow related/from the same source.

Clio

SUICIDEGIRL

Netherlands

NOV 22, 2007 01:19 PM

Suck or not, this has nothing to do with the case whatsoever. I'd sue the show too.

Eimi

SUICIDEGIRL

Australia

NOV 22, 2007 03:40 PM

welchjsn said:
well, i started reading this thinking that the coolerking would be a good read as usual. but i must say this article sucked ass. i really dont give two shits why you dont like the rhcp. i was really hoping to see real justifaction as to why you thought it was a lame move by rhcp. oh well, here is hoping the next article is worth reading.

i 100% agree, thankyou!

Tinkly

United Kingdom

October 2007

NOV 22, 2007 03:57 PM

So you dont like them, we get it, some of us do, I am proud to say I have a very very varied taste in music and will happily listen to pretty much anything for its musical value, RHCP are one of my all time favourite bands, who have spanned generations and grown there own unique style, Surley 20 odd years of as a popular band is a testament to that. I consider myself lucky to have seen them several times all over the world,and I think many millions of people would agree with me, I also understand that there are many millions that wont.
We have to remember that ALL artists (even if you dont like them) are a brand, they have to sell all the new material to fans and prospective fans and keep themselves in the public eye as must as possible least we forget them on the other hand If they belive that the brand has been compromised should they not be allowed the right to defend it?

I pity anyone who agrees with everything that goes on around them, lets let the rich folks get on with making there lawyers rich folks to.

lolly

Madison, WI

April 2004

NOV 22, 2007 07:39 PM

Like others have said, if it were just the name, then fine, but yeah the name and a character named Dani California is enough for a trademark suit, which is different from a copyright suit. And one that they can most likely win.

BABYSNAKES

Baltimore, MD

April 2006

NOV 23, 2007 06:07 AM

Booooo Hoooooo "We are the Red Hot Chili Peppers and we dont have enough money; so we are taking yours" Blah! Silly old men!