We have some posts about this in the Press thread. I'll move them over here.
ETA: Done!
I saw the CBS This Morning segment too and they had footage of the hotel and they clearly are trying to say this is the hotel in the song and had Eagles things there. So they totally are in the right to go after them.
~*Amanda*~
"So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains and we never even know we have the key."
According to the BBC the hotel does not claim any association with the Eagles.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39791284
Hmm. Well, it doesn't take much for Don Henley to call his lawyer, but I hope this one isn't as spurious as the infamous suing of the non-profit American Eagle Foundation (a lawsuit spearheaded by Henley and Azoff which was eventually dropped). That was a long time ago - it was filed in 1998 and dropped in 2001 - and I think they learned from it to be a bit more discriminating in whom they target.
The hotel owners state in their hotel's pamphlets that they're not the hotel of the song, but apparently the band believes they are implying it in their marketing. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the hotel owners decided to revive the hotel's original name, one which had not been used in years, due to the song's fame.
In some ways, it's similar to Don's 2014 lawsuit against the Duluth Trading Co.'s ad for henley shirts which said "Don a henley and take it easy" (see more here). He won that suit (in the sense that they apologized and stopped using the ad - technically it was settled). In the resulting settlement, Don had them donate the money to Walden Woods instead of pocketing it himself, for what it's worth.
I agree with the band- the hotel is using the Eagle's name to sell merchandise and a lot of the hotel guests believe it is the Hotel California.
If the hotel is explicitly trading off the song in its merchandising and/or marketing, the case is strong. If the connection is not explicit but rather implied, it would be more difficult to make the case; however, it could still be done.
Eh, I think they should stay away from using guest reviews as their evidence. There are a lot of clueless people out there, so one could argue it's not the hotel's fault that many of their patrons are ignorant.Originally Posted by Phil
I got the following from the BBC article:Reviews on TripAdvisor show that some visitors believe it is the hotel referenced in the hit song.
"It has put this otherwise sleepy little Baja town on the map for tourism," wrote one, while another reviewer states the building is "the place where the Eagles wrote the song".
However, most of the reviews debunk the myth. "The association often made between this hotel and Eagles song of that name is not supported in fact, only implied," is a typical comment.
Another review notes: "This is not the hotel they are singing about [and] once you enter the hotel, you can read the pamphlets with the history of the hotel and they will tell you the same thing."
Interesting article about the case including a link to the actual complaint
http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...n+the+Long+Run
It's Business As usual
The Eagles lawyers must be delighted that the band haven't called it a day.
Would I be right in thinking that the Eagles lawsuit was prompted by an attempt by the Hotel to trademark the "Hotel California" name?
I am surprised they did not file for some kind of protection against the use of the name years ago. That hotel has been around for awhile. I agree that it is probably the hotels actions in filing for trademark protection that prompted the lawsuit. Based from what the article said, it appears the hotels right to the name expired three years after it stopped using "Hotel California" as it's name back in the 50's.
Mary C. - I know you are an attorney - can you give your opinion on this. Any other US attorneys on the board?