Courts

The Right Outcome Of This 'Krusty Krab' Lawsuit Will Be Very Obvious To Lawyers Who Are Parents

When intellectual property law and parenting worlds collide.

By  
on

“Whoooooo… lives in a pineapple under the sea?”

If you have children, you just reflexively said “SpongeBob SquarePants!” and then cursed my very existence. Sorry to do that to you while you’re at work, but there’s interesting news on the SpongeBob and the law front that I thought you’d like to know about.

A Houston man has filed an “intent-to-use” trademark for a proposed chain of restaurants he wants to call “Krusty Krab.” Unless you are a parent who weirdly denies your kids television and tablets and generally keeps junior locked in the attic with a violin and multiplication tables, you know that the Krusty Krab is the restaurant where SpongeBob works.

The Krusty Krab is integral to the show. SpongeBob is an undersea wage-slave. He’s a mentally challenged, literal sieve, who has one savant-level skill of cooking delicious “Krabby Patties.” His talents are exploited by the feckless corporate crustacean who owns and operates the Krusty Krab, and many of Bob’s adventures are centered around his Sisyphean efforts to merely show up to work despite being beset by idiots on every side.

It’s a popular children’s show, owned by Viacom. Houston restauranteur, Javier Ramos Jr., has no affiliation with the show, and yet he proposes to open an eatery in the show’s name.

Viacom moved to block Ramos, obviously, and U.S. District Judge Gray Miller agreed with Viacom. Ramos appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which heard oral arguments on the case this week. Ramos argues that while Viacom has trademarked “SpongeBob Square Pants,” it has not trademarked the “Krusty Krab.” He further argues that the Krusty Krab is a mere “ornamental backdrop” in the show, and thus Viacom cannot protect the mark.

This is a ridiculous argument to anybody who has watched the show. The Krusty Krab isn’t just a setting, it is a force in that drives the action of the show.

Sponsored

Regardless of whether Viacom should have trademarked the Krusty Krab, the standard is “likelihood of consumer confusion.” Ramos argues that his mark should not be dismissed at this stage, as a matter of law, because he just has a name. He doesn’t have a physical restaurant replete with sea creatures. How can we judge consumer confusion just based on the name? He might call it the Krust Krab, but outfit the restaurant in a complete different direction that would make it clear he has no affiliation with the show.

I think I speak for many parents when I say that people like Ramos should drown in a vat of tears from children who are disappointed by knock-off schlock. KIDS will be CONFUSED if you call your thing the Krusty Krab and a waiter dressed like a sponge DOESN’T serve you a Krabby Pattie.

What Ramos is really saying here is “I want to call my thing something it’s not and then RUIN CHILDREN’S DAYS by tricking their parents into taking them to my place.” There are men handing out candy from their vans who aren’t this devious.

I can already tell you how Ramos’s restaurant is going to go:

“I want to go to the Krusty Krab, Daddy.”
“No.”
“PLEASE! Pleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease.”
“JESUS F**KING CHRIST, FINE.”
[later]
“I’d like a Krabby Pattie.”
“We don’t have those.”
“NOOOO. WHAAA. I WISH I WERE DEAD.”
“Can’t you control your kid?”
[later]
“Sir, maybe you should tell me what happened.”
“Lawyer.”
“It appears that this Krusty Krab menu might be lodged in the victim’s rectum, permanently. Did you do that?”
“Lawyer.”

Sponsored

The Fifth Circuit cannot allow this to happen. The Krusty Krab is a SpongeBob SquarePants establishment. Anything less will be ruinous. I have a better idea for Mr. Ramos:

Dispute Over Krusty Krab Restaurant Lands in Fifth Circuit [Courthouse News Service]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.

Topics

, ,