Speaker 1: It's considered one of the eagles most famous songs, Welcome
Speaker 1: to California. But the Eagles were not singing about a
Speaker 1: specific hotel, and certainly not about the Hotel California in
Speaker 1: Toto Santos, Mexico. In fact, the hotel on the cover
Speaker 1: of the album is the Beverly Hills Hotel. So the
Speaker 1: Eagles are suing the Mexican hotel for trademark infringement, claiming
Speaker 1: it's using the name to falsely lead consumers to believe
Speaker 1: there's an association with the band, including selling merchandise with
Speaker 1: the band's name. Our guest is Dr Michael Harrington, a
Speaker 1: musicologist and Music Business Department chair at the s a. E. Institute.
Speaker 1: Michael described the Eagles trademark infringement case. It's, I think
Speaker 1: pretty good because the song is so well known. Um,
Speaker 1: it's it's that's been around a long time. And even
Speaker 1: though the hotel in Baja Mexico is called Hotel California,
Speaker 1: n it long ago lost that name, a changed ownership
Speaker 1: and so forth. Um. But then if you even go
Speaker 1: to the Hotel California website, you see it says it's
Speaker 1: access by driving down along Desert Highway and they talk
Speaker 1: mission bells a heard um. And also I think the
Speaker 1: Eagles I can see why they're concerned. Also because Hotel
Speaker 1: California in the Baja place has been applying for a
Speaker 1: lot of trademarks for a lot of goods and services,
Speaker 1: So I think that's probably what led to lead to this. Well, Michael,
Speaker 1: what if any kind of defense does the hotel have here? Um? Well,
Speaker 1: it'd be interesting to see if the Eagles have a
Speaker 1: trademark in Hotel California. I know that the words because
Speaker 1: I know right now they've applied for one this year
Speaker 1: and it covers oh, guitar picks, key chains, t shirts,
Speaker 1: bunch and things like that. Um. And also the fact
Speaker 1: that it was called at once for years it was
Speaker 1: founded that way. Um. And from what I've seen, I
Speaker 1: don't know that they're saying Eagles on the clothing. It
Speaker 1: says Hotel California on all their all the merchandise, so
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. Um, how you know how how much
Speaker 1: it says Eagles, except they play Eagles music there and
Speaker 1: they feature things like even Vanity Fair reviewed the hotel
Speaker 1: and they called it the phrase easy living at the
Speaker 1: Hotel California. You know, everyone keeps trying to play on
Speaker 1: the Eagles song. So that's what I think is going
Speaker 1: against the hotel in Mexico. The the hotel owners on
Speaker 1: their website say although the present owners at the hotel
Speaker 1: do not have any affiliation with the Eagles, nor do
Speaker 1: they promote any association, many visitors are mesmerized by the
Speaker 1: coincidences between the lyrics of the hit song and the
Speaker 1: physicality of the hotel and its surroundings. Does that disclaimer
Speaker 1: count for anything. I don't know that it would because
Speaker 1: it is buried in there. Um. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: stuff on the website and to get I've been looking
Speaker 1: at it today. It's a fascinating how it was founded
Speaker 1: by a Mr. Wong, a Chinese immigrant who who end
Speaker 1: up changing his name to Don Antonio Tabasco just so
Speaker 1: the locals would think he was one of them. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, no, I think the fact that some of
Speaker 1: that stuff gets buried, I don't know, um in the
Speaker 1: vanity fair quote and some other things kind of emphasizing
Speaker 1: and reaffirming the lyrics of the Eagle song, I think
Speaker 1: is more problematic for the hotel. Well, you know, the
Speaker 1: Eagles themselves have said it's not really about, you know,
Speaker 1: a particular hotel. I think Don Henley was once quoted
Speaker 1: as saying that it's really about um America, it's not
Speaker 1: about a hotel. And Glenn Fry, I think was quote
Speaker 1: a saying we have no idea what the songs about.
Speaker 1: It was just a whole bunch of stuffs, um, which
Speaker 1: who knows which is true. But if that's the case, um,
Speaker 1: you know, is there any possibility the hotel can say, hey, look,
Speaker 1: the song is not even really about a hotel where
Speaker 1: you know, we are a hotel, so who's going to
Speaker 1: get confused? Right? I think they could say that, and
Speaker 1: that's I did see an interview one time with Henley
Speaker 1: where he said, yes about the dock underbelly of America
Speaker 1: and things like that, which I hadn't realized that. And
Speaker 1: I more believe it is a bunch of images and
Speaker 1: things thrown together, uh that are more psychedelic or not
Speaker 1: literal um. And I think that they, you know, those
Speaker 1: kind of remarks where some of the eagles are even
Speaker 1: saying we don't know what the things about, and the
Speaker 1: fact that this hotel had existed before, um, I know,
Speaker 1: I can see both sides of this. I still think
Speaker 1: the Eagles might have the better better case because of
Speaker 1: the identity with the public and the sense, you know,
Speaker 1: the confusion of the origin of goods and services problem,
Speaker 1: which is what trademark is supposed to help. So I
Speaker 1: think that that goes against the hotel. Michael. What is
Speaker 1: confusing to me is that since the late seventies the
Speaker 1: Eagles have sold merchandise bearing them. The Eagles and the
Speaker 1: Hotel California mark everything from guitar picks to bathrobes to posters.
Speaker 1: Why is there only now an application to register the
Speaker 1: trademark for merchandise. I would think it's I know that
Speaker 1: that's a really interesting I've seen that as well. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it's because this big trademark application by the
Speaker 1: hotel in Mexico, it was filed in November and published
Speaker 1: for opposition in September. Last September, I think it's that's
Speaker 1: probably what maybe alert them that, Okay, we're not going
Speaker 1: to do enough. We need to, you know, take care
Speaker 1: of this. So it would seem to me that maybe
Speaker 1: the Eagles have been um a bit lax and protecting
Speaker 1: their mark. I'm not sure. Well, they've generally been pretty
Speaker 1: strong about going after people who infringe on their on
Speaker 1: what they think there are there arks, including the American
Speaker 1: Eagle Foundations. In the American Eagle Foundations they backed off
Speaker 1: of because you know, American eagles. I think we're around
Speaker 1: before the eagles probably. But but Michael, is it is
Speaker 1: it possible that there's some kind of compromise that could
Speaker 1: happen here that would allow the hotel to have some
Speaker 1: marketing that plays on the notoriety of the name Hotel
Speaker 1: California without having to go through litigation with the Eagles.
Speaker 1: I would think, so, I mean, why not work some
Speaker 1: something out. It seems an easy thing to do. The
Speaker 1: hotel looks looks really good for I just checked prices.
Speaker 1: It's a whole lot of things under a hundred fifty
Speaker 1: dollars and beautiful location. Um. It has been there since
Speaker 1: uh construction began I think in forty seven and in
Speaker 1: fifty so UM, I don't know why you wouldn't. I
Speaker 1: kind of like the approach that the Grateful Dead would
Speaker 1: take with when they would find people creating their own
Speaker 1: trademarks and logos and so forth of the dead. If
Speaker 1: it was something someone small time, they would just often
Speaker 1: would just pottner up and find ways that you can
Speaker 1: make that work. I think that's easier than um, than
Speaker 1: than this. But I always think it's easier than going
Speaker 1: to court. UM. I think court is always risky. It
Speaker 1: costs too much, it takes too long, it buys so
Speaker 1: much bad will. UM. I think the Eagles might to
Speaker 1: some people might really look like, well aren't they rich enough?
Speaker 1: And and what do they have and how much? How
Speaker 1: many the Eagle's greatest hits is the always the number
Speaker 1: one or two albums selling on the planet. Um. I
Speaker 1: think it would be easier to work something out. I
Speaker 1: can't see go ahead. Well, what's ironic is that the
Speaker 1: Eagles didn't get permission to use the Beverly Hills Hotel
Speaker 1: for the cover of their album. But if that is
Speaker 1: one of the uh, the cover art from that album
Speaker 1: is one of the things being sold ten seconds, would
Speaker 1: that be a harder sell for a trademark infringement. It
Speaker 1: could be because that that is something that everyone associates.
Speaker 1: They think the Beverly Hills Hotel is the Hotel California.
Speaker 1: All Right, I want to thank you so much. Dr
Speaker 1: Michael Harrington of Music Business Department Chair at the s
Speaker 1: A Institute. That's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law
Speaker 1: will be back Monday at one pm Wall Street Time.
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Markets with Carol Masthew Cory Johnson is coming up.
Speaker 1: Piss is Bloomberg