Weren't the rights to use this song acquired through proper channels? If so then the Romantics need to settle down a bit. I would be somewhat, but not entirely surprised if the courts rule in favor of the band.
Sometimes I think that if only the judge had ruled properly in the Liebeck v. McDonald's case, or even better, dismissed the case as frivilous, the world would be a much better place than it is now.

So, inserting some actual knowledge of trademark law...
The case is less frivolous than it looks (in terms of chance of success, not in terms of silliness--it's still very silly.) The two big cases both involved ads for Frito-Lay products.
In one, Frito-Lay had Miss Piggy singing "The Girl from Ipanema", and Astrid Gilberto/Oliveira (the original artist) sued Frito-Lay on a right of publicity/false endorsement claim. Oliveira lost in the Second Circuit (Federal Court of Appeals covering the New York and surrounding areas); the court wouldn't recognize trademark-ish rights in a song.
In the second, Frito-Lay had a very good imitator sing a Tom Waits song in a very good impression of Waits's voice for a commercial. This time, Waits won; the court (California, this time) held that you could get trademark-ish rights in a voice.
Here, we've got a good imitation (like Waits), but I don't think a reasonable consumer would believe that the Romantics were endorsing Guitar Hero. There's also the problem that the "as made famous by" pretty clearly marks the song as a cover, while in the Waits case, there was no "This is not Tom Waits" language in the ad, even in fine print. That should be enough to get the court to dismiss the suit, but a judge could let it proceed without issue.
Now, if this actually got to trial, Activision et al get some really fun arguments to make to the jury, such as:
1. The Romantics don't have a "signature sound" that identifies their work.

2. The cover was terrible, and there was very little confusion despite what the Romantics' idiot fans thought.

3. Since the Romantics only ever had one hit song in that particular style, the style can't really identify the band (Wikipedia says they switched to a more synth-pop sound after their initial hit).

Do they own rights to What I like about you? I hear it in played a lot in comercials... and according to wikipedia it wasn't to their knownledge. This lead them to suit their management and label. So they weren't able to record music until the mid 90's which is quite a while since they started out in the early 80s. (according to wikipedia)
Basically, despite their talent and success they didn't see a penny of money. Now that they are older and fatter (and sort of only good for playing 90's/80's nolstolgia gigs), I imagine that they will explore all avenues of income and cling to the images of their youth. Since they couldn't make money off their music, they can only make money off the images of their youth.
I don't think they will stop Guitar Hero games. (If anything Rock Band would stop Guitar Hero games.) It just stops album covers being in the game and we get more rock/high school punk undertonish doodles.
Some how I think it's more their lost... but that is just my perspective.

umm thats they have the "As Made Famous By" in the beginning of the song...
this band is stupid..

And yet you don't hear about Danny Elfman suing Harmonix for false advertising that harms his former band, i.e. they claimed to feature "Only a Lad" and instead featured a whirring blade of shit. There's a lawsuit one could actually win.

@Gouki4u: I'm safe! *sings away happily*

Interesting to see them do this. I'd rather see Rage Against the Machine suing over how terrible Killing in the Name of sounds, or somebody get punched in face for how whiny the vocals sound in Wolfmother's Woman, but those things will never happen.

@chinesedentist:

ok thanks for the clear up

Jealous of the Guitar Hero franchise's success, yet another company out to get themselves a nice little slice of the plastic-guitar-controller-fortune.
Nobody told them that Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s sold about as well as Superman 64 here in the UK (as it catered to the American 80s and left other countries thoroughly confused with their choices of tracks), and consequently I theorise that the amount of profit that RedOctane, Harmonix and Activision made from that song cover within the title is about £2.40.
Hand over their coins and shut them up.

This is stupid. Also, vinyl>>CD.

The Romantics: Yeah, we said you could cover it but we didn't say you could make it sound the same!

Harmonix/RO: Oh! There must have been a misunderstan... wait a minute! Didn't we send you a copy of Guitar Hero 2?

The Romantics: Ummm... maybe?

Harmonix/RO: Didn't you hear how similar those covers were? Did you even play it?

The Romantics: We tried, but the guitar wouldn't plug into our amps!

Harmonix/RO: No one even bought Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s! And it said "As made famous by"! Are you retarded or something?

The Romantics: My mommy says I'm special and that anyone that says I'm retarded is just plain mean!

In related news, The Romantics have also filed suit John Mellencamp for 1985's "R.O.C.K in the U.S.A." for being "virtually indistinguishable" from "What I Like About You" which may lead to wedding attendees to being confused as to which song they are dancing to when the band plays both songs together in a medley.

Guess Neversoft is safe. The covers in GH3 SUCKED.
Also, why does everyone hate Fallout Boy? I'm into classic rock and classical, well, music, so I don't know about what "dem dere yungin's" are listening to. Every single review of Rock Band rags on Fallout Boy as well. Are they some kind of emo band?
@ THESUPERIORMURRAY:
As far as I'm concerned, record labels and pirates are exactly the same. They both think that they have ownership rights of bands' music. Both are wrong.

@Disneyfan69: Digital and Analog: Why can't we just get along? I love 'em both; they both have their place. My fave? SACD. Check out Peter Gabriel's first three solo records on that format. I actually retired that particular vinyl after acquiring the SACDs. Too bad that format's already dead.
ANYHOOOOO...back on topic.
The Romantics? We actually played "What I Like About You" in marching band in high school. Arranged by J. Bocook, of course. That's what we really need: a marching band music game where we all get to relive the experience of playing ultra-square arrangements of popular music! You could have an over-the-shoulder drum controller AND a DDR-type controller so the player had to play AND march at the same time!
My god I'm a nerd.

@Ergophobia: Don't knock Vinyl... there is fidelilty in Analog sound Digital cannot create. Its similiar to the black of digital TVs. You can get it looking good, but it will never be AS GOOD as a tub TV in terms of the color black.

First of all, I doubt most people will become confused because no one really remembers the name The Romantics. Second, they will lose this case... I will be surprised if it isn't dismissed fairly quickly. As long as they got permission to cover it from the copyright holder (the catalog rights I believe its called) and pay the royalties, then they are fine.

@Meldy: fall out boy's not a rock band, and i really don't recall anyone calling them that.

@thesuperiormurray: Mmm we all miss the high quality of vinyl. You can actually hear the music in these digital formats, its ridiculous.

Hmm. But they did say "as made famous by", and not "as performed by". Totally curious as to the outcome of this case.

also read: We were a one hit wonder and need some money to support our families while vactioning from airport Ramada Hotel gigs.

They're just jealous of GH's success. They're just washed up and want money.

Okay now, the quality of the cover really shouldn't be the point of this lawsuit. They should really be suing over the 400+ triple chords in the song.
"Yeah, like, you totally made out song unfun to play, Harmonix!"

Pheonix Wright Rocks The 80s!

no big deal. they'll probably just add "cover version" or something to help further clarify the term, "as made famous by". this sort of case could be handled even by judge mathis.

When you license a song to cover I've never heard of any law that requires it be legally distinct from the original in any way... if it was you wouldn't have to license it in the first place.

Let this be a lesson to Harmonix to never again use a song from a "one music only" nameless band where the band musicians are so cheap they go and fill lawsuits to rob some money from game companies that are actually making them a favor and ressurecting their music as possible hits (as seen on DDR games, for instance).

So those people who confuse the cover for the original...are they also illiterate then? Because I'm pretty sure there's a big "As made famous by" or some other indicator it's not the orignal EVERY TIME YOU PLAY IT.

It reflects badly on the band that the cover was so accurate.

If it was inaccurate, it might actually be a good song.

Wait, so the problem here is that the cover was too good? How is this a problem? I'm guessing that they are just looking for a quick buck.

Whine whine whine!

Yeah this is silly they are sueing for that.I kinda like my covers
in games to sound like the originals call me crazy. I can only assume
the feel that people will be happy with the game soundtrack instead of
theirs but that is such a small part I imagine everyone that cared
about their songs has bought there songs before the game. But i'm sure
there is at least a somewhat a small ammount comming in from ringtones
and itunes etc. The game probably worked more as an advertisement for
them than anything that is why I feel this is silly. The sad part of
this is Rock the 80's is probably the weakest GH made for various
reasons.

The problem is that Harmonix was too cheap to licence the actual recording of the song. Instead they hire a bunch of session players to do a decent cover and save some money.
Its the same reason "WKRP" is crap in syndication, It's not the real songs.

i guess they'll have to start including "cover must suck moreso than the actual song" in the contract.

@Keeb13r: Haha, I guess that's about right. When the original is already awful, there's not much you can do about it. Btw, are there any actual fans of this band?

I think the problem they have is that it sounds too much like 'them' when it actually isn't. It's so similar to the original its hard to differentiate, thus the grounds for the lawsuit. They probably agreed to a 'cover' version, not realizing it was going to be a cover that replicates and mimics them exactly.
However it still sounds like a bogus claim anyway and probably wont stand up if it gets to court.

Too bad there's no evidence that having your song included in a rhythm game makes people want to buy it and listen to it. Oh, wait. There is.

@chinesedentist:
Please, let's keep things factual here . . .
they were a two-hit-wonder ("Talking In Your Sleep"), so it's a totally different scenario. Totally. Mostly. Somewhat. Kind of. A Little.
. . . okay, mabye not.

Because assuming it's the original track and not a cover harms the artist how..? They're losing money why again..? Sad, sad, sad. Go get normal jobs. Accept your moment in the spotlight is over.

Are The Romantics going to start suing people who 100% the song on Expert, too?

What do you mean if they are hungry for cash, people are consumed by the almighty dollar - it sickens me.

@knulpm: Yeah, Jimi's estate are kinda...whats the word...jerks? I can understand wanting to respect the legacy, but DAMN thats over the top. Either way, that is one of my absolute favorite songs to play.

there all idiots, my god, it means people want to play the song, why the hell are they suing them, not like the used the original! Jezus

This is what happens when all that sweet, sweet Applebees' money runs dry.

Didn't a similar thing happen with Spanish Castle Magic in the original? The first guy they hired to be Jimi didn't meet the standards of the Hendrix family, so Harmonix/Red Octane out of courtesey rerecorded it with a different vocalist. This time they claimed he sounded TOO much like Jimi Hendrix, so they gave it up and just left it an instrumental tract.
I imagine before they became a monster hit and a cultural phenomenon, something like this suit would have scared the pants off of the Guitar Hero folks. But now they've got some leverage and money in their court. My understanding of the rules on this is they have nothing to fear. They clearly represent that this is NOT the original (from the "As made famous" by they tag every cover with).

The worst thing about this lawsuit is that the Romantics say cover is "virtually indistinguishable." Ummm.... have you listened to it? It's probably one of the worst covers these companies have ever made.

Well when you hold the whammy bar down doesn't it make different noises compared to the original song? OMFG It is different, besides if the band didn't suck then maybe we could tell the difference.

@ethic: Actually, it's the theme song for that Amanda Bynes sitcom.

Theres a word for people like these guys; douche.

Sounds like someone's ego needs stroking.
Poor babies wrote a song only to have some other band play it better/just as good as they can.
My guess is that we'll see the announcement of a new Romantics album shortly after this lawsuit announcement. It just seems logical, first they get their name back into the public mindset, then they use that to their advantage to push out some shitty album full of shitty material that nobody, not even fans of the band back in the 80s, will buy.

@That Girl Hates You: Legally, if you pay the appropriate royalties, you can play any thing you want. Now as far as licensing for other media goes, bands do have the right to deny they be used in film/tv/games, etc. However, if someone else owns the publishing rights to the song (I believe), covers of them can be licensed by others aside from the original authors.

I'm listening to the song right now. I can't quite place what commercial it's from... Maybe some sort of shampoo or something.

Stupid has beens trying to get money any way they can. Hey morons, maybe someone might think it's you, like the song, and then go and buy the fucking cd. Stupid dummies.

One day I will build a time machine, go back to 1997, and hit Lars Ulrich over the head with something frozen and hard over and over again until he proclaims his love for Napster - and then all the Metallica Jrs. of today (or the 80s) won't have all these delusions about "rights" and so on, and I can go on downloading all the lovely musical drivel in peace, and paying for what I like if the band is smart enough to release on vinyl. And somehow this will effect Rock Band, or something.

So remember kids, covering a song by your favorite band is only legal if you suck.

So maybe I don't understand it too well, but I always thought that if you're big and do a cover you have to let the original artist know about it... And it's not like some other band is claiming that it's their song they do put in credits.
People annoy me /sigh

"The suit claims that the re-recording of the group's 1980 hit is 'virtually indistinguishable from the authentic version'..."
Um. Isn't that the point?

Surely the cover would get people interested in checking out the original? The chance of a lawsuit to claim "damages" seems to make people go crazy.

I fail to see how they can sue here...I've had to say that twice in the same friggen day on this site and thats sad!
They or their label approved the song to be used in the game as a cover. How you can blame Harmonix or anyone for that matter if the cover sounds so damn good?
Im gonna sue you cause you sound as good or better then me? HAH!

The judge is going to have fun with this.
"This Guitar Hero cover sounds nothing like the original. In Guitar Hero, only 80% of the guitar notes were played, an entire fifth of the song is missing! That's completely different from the average 94% of notes The Romantics can play."

yeah there suing cause they have no real money anymore...
but if i were them i would do the same...lol

Is there some sort of unwritten law about covers that says that they need to be x% shittier than the original? Or if that happened, would they have sued because the cover was y% shittier than the original, which would thereby have hurt their reputation because people who didn't know the original song may think of them as a worse band than they really are?

I guess they did not read their contraks or dont know they got the rights to it in the fist place.

Good luck with that lawsuit guys. The game definitely says "As made famous by" every time you play the song, instead of "As performed by" for the master tracks. And I am pretty sure the compulsory license laws will protect Harmonix against any copyright/royalty issues.

Well this is a bit crazy.

We have to assume they have signed over the rights for Harmonix to reproduce the track. I cant imagine there was a clause in there that said the song had to be a poor replication

Wow, this is really, really dumb and clearly a cash grab. I can see zero scenarios where this harms the Romantics beyond maybe one or two people (who can't read/comprehend "as made famous by") who feel like the one-hit-wonders "sold out" by licensing their song for the game.
Actually, no one in the world believes that. No one. They just haven't had a hit since 1980 and want to continue to milk their nearly three decade old flash in the pan.

Is there any sort of boycott we can start against them that would affect them at all? Other than, you know, not giving them our spare change anymore?

I take that back - they're probably really suing because the cover is better than the original recording.

Hmmmm, looking at their picture I don't think the term "rock band" has ever seemed such a misnomer.
Oh, hang on, I forgot about Fallout Boy...

Wait, they're suing because the cover is too awesome?

Doesn't the game actually tell you if it's a cover or not? Like, at the beginning of the song, it says the title and either by or as made famous by and then the name of the artist right? It's really not that hard to understand...

"What I Like About You" is one of the most covered songs I've ever heard (next to "Walking on Sunshine")...and now they sue over one?