Ungrateful Scumbag Releases Album, Sues Dr. Pepper

Look, we all said it was going to happen. We've said it on my marketing podcast, The BeanCast. There's only so often that brands can use borrowed interest from other brands in PR stunts before the borrowee takes legal action against the borrower. But this story about Axl Rose suing Dr. Pepper is just crazy!

For those in the dark, Dr. Pepper publicly said that it would give everyone in America a free can of Dr. Pepper if Guns n Roses (Mr. Rose's band) released an album this year.

Now, this "has-been" rocker, whose new album will be nothing more than a novelty to most of us, has basically done what he has always done...spit in the face of those who are making him famous in the first place.

I don't need to detail all the incidents Mr. Rose has been attributed with. If you know him, you know about them. If you don't know him, you're better off in your ignorance. But let's just say he has a history of bi-polar disorder and biting the hand that feeds him. And while the NFL suing Taco Bell for borrowing their brand for one of their promotions would be a legitimate test case regarding these borrowed-brand PR stunts, having Axl Rose be the plaintiff just complicates the issue with his natural penchant for pettiness.

First, he's on the record as saying he was gratified for the attention. Now he's got a long-winded complaint about how his "brand" was infringed. Ostensibly this was all inspired by the fact that Dr. Pepper failed to deliver the promise of free drinks to America because of technical problems with the delivery system. But wouldn't the threat of legal action have been better than this? If he was really out to "help everyone get their Dr. Pepper," wouldn't some private words have been better?

All this aside, though, the underlying issues are relevant. Can one brand borrow the power of another's with impunity when crafting a PR stunt? I would say that the safe assumption is that it is certainly not acceptable without prior arrangement. I would think everyone on The BeanCast would probably agree with me.

A lot of money goes into the creation of a brand and the products/services it represents. Why should another brand get a free ride, even when the first brand is part of a public domain spectacle? I think the Olympics and the NFL have clearly established even when a brand is part of a public event, it is still a valuable commodity that cannot be infringed upon. And while I think Mr. Rose's actions are petty, his underlying case is sound. The only trouble here is that the symbiosis was stronger than either of the brands, and it's debatable about which brand benefited more from the association. An equal case can be made that Mr. Rose's band benefited more from this stunt than Dr. Pepper. And this whole situation could serve to cloud the issue of brand-infringement even further.