As you may be aware, the Red Hot Chili Peppers have filed a lawsuit against Showtime and the creators of the show "Californication" saying it infringes on their album song/title of the same name...or some crap in the words of "the lawsuit alleges unfair competition, dilution of the value of the name and unjust enrichment, claiming the title is 'inherently distinctive, famous ... and immediately associated in the mind of the consumer' with the Red Hot Chili Peppers ( http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/f.../Recordings/People_Red_Hot_Chili_Peppers.html )". On the level, RHCP didn't originate the word. It originated elsewhere in the '70s ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Californication_(portmanteau) ) . Yes, RHCP used the word to their advantage on their album/title. However, does that give them the right to monopolize the word? They didn't originate the word or saying. The owners of the show say their use of the word stems from the '70s use of the word...and they thought it would make a good title for their show. Do you think this is a frivolous lawsuit? Or, does their case have merit? Explain. My personal opinion is just because a band uses a name for a song or title of an album does not mean they now have a monopoly on the word...especially since they didn't originate the word. I'm not sure what the law would say in this matter. Obviously, it's a bigger deal when one is talking about the name of a band. If another band came along and named themselves "Red Hot Chili Peppers, Jr."...then that would obviously be problematic. But, does that same principle apply in this case? I have a hard time buying that line of thinking. How does Showtime's use of the word cause any loss of profit to the music of RHCP? Are people not going to buy the album now because there is a show of the same name? Is it wrong to associate several meanings with the same word? Oh...it's a band's hit album/song but it's also a Showtime series. I mean...are we the audience that dumb that we cannot associate multiple usages to a single word? What reason is there that the two usages cannot co-exist? I hope this part of the lawsuit get's tossed. It just doesn't fly with me.
I don't know the state of the law on this sort of thing off the top of my head. But my opinion is irrelevant as to whether it's frivilous. I'm fairly certain this is well-settled law. I have to say, when I first heard the name of the show I immediately thought of the song. I had never heard the phrase before that and never heard it since until the show came out.
I wondered about this when the show came out. If the RHCP had originated the word, I would think they have a case. Since they didn't, not so much.
I am going to have to copyright fivepete for the next five rocket championships, so you all have to pay me.
The only "dilution of the value" I can see is every RHCP album after Mother's Milk. EDIT: Damn you, kpsta!
The word does not belong to the RHCPs, so yes this is a frivilous lawsuit. Unless you own a copyright, this stuff is impossible to prove. And kpsta & ima hit the nail on the head...this band has been a mere shell of itself since Mothers Milk. To me, the Chili Peppers died when Hillel Slovak died.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/L3KiPbXV05M&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/L3KiPbXV05M&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
That's why I eluded to "this part of the lawsuit" because I believe that is another part of the lawsuit that one cannot easily overlook. This character name is unique to a RHCP song and for the show to use it without consent...there may be some repurcussions there. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.
