# TV shows being sued for using band/album names (Californication,Arrested Development) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 8, 2008, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220 "2008-12-08T08:38:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![firstname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7ab992/32.png) [@firstname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/firstname)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/1 "2008-12-08T08:38:04Z")
I remember when Arrested Development was on tv, it was sued by the band which spawned a number of good jokes being written into AD. Now a while ago I read that the Red Hot Chili Peppers are [suing](http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20161596,00.html) Showtime and/or Californication for the same type of thing. What is going on here, what laws are being broken and do the bands actually have a leg to stand on or is this just a money grab from the deep pockets of the TV networks. Its also worth noting that the names in issue here were established before either of the bands used them. Not to mods: obviously this deals with cafe society type topics but i want a factual answer so i placed it here, but please feel free move if you see fit. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/2 "2008-12-08T13:38:18Z")
If the TV show or band has trademarked the name, then it could be a trademark infringement. If there is no trademark, there’s probably no case. Titles aren’t copyrightable, so the fact that the Red Hot Chili Peppers had an album by that name is meaningless for copyright infringement. I note that the text quoted from the case makes no mention of copyright or trademark infringement. It sounds like a “sue and hope for the best” type of case. ---
**Author:** ![firstname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7ab992/32.png) [@firstname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/firstname)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/3 "2008-12-08T14:14:04Z")
Thanks for the reply, I’d imagine that none of these entities would be trademarked, but if they were; would they of been able to win a case with [“likelihood of confusion”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement), between a TV show and a band or album? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/4 "2008-12-08T14:23:54Z")
> [@firstname](#): > > I remember when Arrested Development was on tv, it was sued by the band which spawned a number of good jokes being written into AD. Were the jokes one of the story lines or just sporadic references you’d have to know the backstory to get? ---
**Author:** ![firstname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7ab992/32.png) [@firstname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/firstname)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/5 "2008-12-08T14:41:18Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Were the jokes one of the story lines or just sporadic references you’d have to know the backstory to get? > **[Arrested Development](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrested_Development_(TV_series)#Lawsuit_over_title)** > > Arrested Development is an American satirical television sitcom created by Mitchell Hurwitz that debuted on Fox on November 2, 2003. It follows the Bluth family, a formerly wealthy, dysfunctional family and is presented in a serialized format, incorporating handheld camera work, voice-over narration, archival photos and historical footage, and maintains numerous running gags and catchphrases. Ron Howard served as both an executive producer and the omniscient narrator and, in later seasons, app... These are the only ones I know of specifically, there are quite possibly more knowing the writing of this show. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/6 "2008-12-08T15:03:14Z")
> [@firstname](#): > > Thanks for the reply, I’d imagine that none of these entities would be trademarked, but if they were; would they of been able to win a case with [“likelihood of confusion”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_infringement), between a TV show and a band or album? Who can tell? I don’t think there’s any automatic rule. We saw, for instance, that Apple iTunes was able to sell music despite the Apple Records trademark that the specifically agreed not to compete with. So, ultimately, it depends on the facts of the case and who has the better lawyers. “They’ll bring witnesses and I’ll bring witnesses . . .” ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/7 "2008-12-08T15:05:40Z")
Just a little bit of datum regarding the term “Californication”. I did a Google groups search and it returned only 2 uses of the term prior to the 1999 RHCP release. One in 1998 and another in 1993. Both using the term in the derogatory sense of bad development. I was surprised by this and expected quite a bit more. This might help the RHCP lawyer’s if they are trying to preserve a trademark. (While you can’t copyright/trademark a title as a title, you can trademark it for some bigger purpose. E.g., the “for Dummies” term is trademarked.) A distinct term has broader trademarks rights than a common term. (As in “Kodak” vs. “Kodiak”.) ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/8 "2008-12-08T15:23:15Z")
The claims that the Peppers have made are based on trademark infringement, unfair competition (false designation of origin), and trademark dilution. It’s been more than a year since the claim was filed, and not a whole lot has happened since then. Frankly, it just doesn’t look like a very good case for the Peppers, because they used “Californication” as the title of a work, not as a designation of the origin of goods or services. The last thing on the docket was filed in March. I doubt very much that this case is going anywhere. > [@firstname](#): > > do the bands actually have a leg to stand on or is this just a money grab from the deep pockets of the TV networks. I doubt that’s what’s going on here. I don’t think the Red Hot Chili Peppers are gold-digging. A lot of weak cases are filed in all kinds of areas of the law, but it’s particularly common in intellectual property cases for there to be some kind of emotional hook. I’m guessing that it’s at least one element here that the Peppers probably have a sentimental attachment to the word “Californication” and are genuinely outraged at the idea that someone has “stolen” their word. The fact is that the law might not back them up here, but it’s pretty common for litigants to push pretty far just on sentiment. > [@](#): > > Its also worth noting that the names in issue here were established before either of the bands used them. This is probably not a very important fact in this case. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/9 "2008-12-08T15:44:35Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > This is probably not a very important fact in this case. I’m no lawyer and I don’t even play one on TV. If this case was indeed a “they stole my word” kind of case how is the fact that word existed and was used before the plaintif used it not a very important fact? ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/10 "2008-12-08T15:51:25Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > The claims that the Peppers have made are based on trademark infringement, unfair competition (false designation of origin), and trademark dilution. It’s been more than a year since the claim was filed, and not a whole lot has happened since then. Frankly, it just doesn’t look like a very good case for the Peppers, because they used “Californication” as the title of a work, not as a designation of the origin of goods or services. > > …This is probably not a very important fact in this case. I’m surprised at all of this. I did a search at the Trademark database and didn’t find a hit for Californication. I don’t under how they could trademark the name in the first place, You can’t trademark a name unless you register it for use with specific products or services. They haven’t done any auxiliary products or services by the name of Californication, so they wouldn’t have standing even if they did somehow trademark it. And I would think that prior usages would make a very good counter to any claims of infringement or dilution, again assuming that a trademark had been established in the first place. Can anyone find the supposed trademark registration that the Chilis are claiming infringement of? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/11 "2008-12-08T16:19:41Z")
> [@justrob](#): > > I’m no lawyer and I don’t even play one on TV. If this case was indeed a “they stole my word” kind of case how is the fact that word existed and was used before the plaintif used it not a very important fact? I’m saying I don’t think this is a very important fact in this case, because the Peppers can’t really show that they have any trademark rights in the term in the first place. Even if you invent a completely new term, that doesn’t give you any exclusive rights over it. If it did get to the point at which the background of the term would be at issue, I still don’t think it would be very important, because neither side is going to be arguing over the question of whether “Californication” is being used as a generic term by either side. > [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > I don’t under how they could trademark the name in the first place, You can’t trademark a name unless you register it for use with specific products or services. This is wrong. In fact, it’s completely backwards. You have the right to register a name only after you can show that you’ve been _using_ it as a trademark. Regardless of whether you register a term, both state and federal law allow claims based on unregistered trademarks. > [@](#): > > They haven’t done any auxiliary products or services by the name of Californication, so they wouldn’t have standing even if they did somehow trademark it. Things would be less confusing in this discussion if “trademark” were not used as a verb. I think you mean “if they did somehow register it.” > [@](#): > > And I would think that prior usages would make a very good counter to any claims of infringement or dilution, again assuming that a trademark had been established in the first place. In this case, evidence of prior uses would probably be of use in addressing some very limited issues. The fact is that both parties are using the term as titles for creative works. Whether there are prior uses are not going to be very influential in resolving major issues here. > [@](#): > > Can anyone find the supposed trademark registration that the Chilis are claiming infringement of? Again, no registration is necessary in order to make a trademark claim. ---
**Author:** ![firstname](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7ab992/32.png) [@firstname](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/firstname)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/12 "2008-12-08T16:45:57Z")
Thanks for the detailed responces. So would if be fair to say that neither of these law suits would be won? Are there any circumstances here, where the RHCP or Arrested Development, could of won a trademark infringement suit against the respective shows? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/13 "2008-12-08T17:18:59Z")
> [@firstname](#): > > So would if be fair to say that neither of these law suits would be won? As I said, it seems to me that the Peppers have a weak case. I think that’s the most anyone with knowledge of the law is usually willing to say. > [@](#): > > Are there any circumstances here, where the RHCP or Arrested Development, could of won a trademark infringement suit against the respective shows? I’m not sure what you are asking. It’s possible to invent all kinds of circumstances in which someone might have a strong claim of trademark infringement. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/14 "2008-12-08T17:33:19Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > If the TV show or band has trademarked the name, then it could be a trademark infringement. If there is no trademark, there’s probably no case. > > Titles aren’t copyrightable, so the fact that the Red Hot Chili Peppers had an album by that name is meaningless for copyright infringement. > > I note that the text quoted from the case makes no mention of copyright or trademark infringement. It sounds like a “sue and hope for the best” type of case. Yeah, but the law is clearly not on their side, and since both sides are presumably well represented, I don’t see what they could possibly accomplish other than running up billable hours over a non-issue. Trademark infringement would only apply if the new use created confusion for consumers, eg, by implying that the band was involved with the TV show. So if the show was called “The Red Hot Chili Peppers Variety Hour,” then they have a case. Otherwise, the lawsuit is just nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/15 "2008-12-08T17:49:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Just a little bit of datum regarding the term “Californication”. I did a Google groups search and it returned only 2 uses of the term prior to the 1999 RHCP release. One in 1998 and another in 1993. Both using the term in the derogatory sense of bad development. On the other hand, the closely-related term “Californicator” gives a few hundred hits (246 before Jan 1, 1999… I don’t know when precisely the album was released). Around here, for instance, it’s used for anyone from an urbanized state (not necessarily California itself) who moves to Montana and drives up real estate prices (see also “Califoreigner”). ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/16 "2008-12-08T18:07:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > On the other hand, the closely-related term “Californicator” gives a few hundred hits (246 before Jan 1, 1999… I don’t know when precisely the album was released). Around here, for instance, it’s used for anyone from an urbanized state (not necessarily California itself) who moves to Montana and drives up real estate prices (see also “Califoreigner”). Try the form “Californicate” - “Don’t Californicate \” was a common slogan decades ago, and I certainly have seen it in things like letters to the editor in newspapers long before the commercial internet. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/17 "2008-12-08T18:40:02Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > I’m saying I don’t think this is a very important fact in this case, because the Peppers can’t really show that they have any trademark rights in the term in the first place. Even if you invent a completely new term, that doesn’t give you any exclusive rights over it. > > If it did get to the point at which the background of the term would be at issue, I still don’t think it would be very important, because neither side is going to be arguing over the question of whether “Californication” is being used as a generic term by either side. Thanks, that makes sense. Would the same hold true for the Arrested Development case? ---
**Author:** ![DfrntBreign](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f6c823/32.png) [@DfrntBreign](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DfrntBreign)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/18 "2008-12-08T19:52:49Z")
Isn’t there an aspect of intellectual property law that requires you to “defend” your claim? Could that be the reason for the lawsuits? IANAL but have done some reading on the subject a couple hundred years ago and managed to retain a little. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tv-shows-being-sued-for-using-band-album-names-californication-arrested-development/476220/19 "2008-12-08T19:57:02Z")
> [@DfrntBreign](#): > > Isn’t there an aspect of intellectual property law that requires you to “defend” your claim? Could that be the reason for the lawsuits? > > IANAL but have done some reading on the subject a couple hundred years ago and managed to retain a little. Defense is part of trademark law only – not other forms of intellectual property law – but there are two things here: 1. Defending your trademark is not done solely by filing lawsuits 2. Filing a lawsuit as a factor in defense absent any other, more basic, act that establishes a trademark right in the first place is not very useful