直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

SpongeBob Restaurant Found To Infringe Viacom’s Trademark

March 08, 2017

Authored and Edited by Jonathan D. Uffelman; Naresh Kilaru; Julia Anne Matheson

On January 11, 2017, the Southern District of Texas granted Viacom International Inc. summary judgment on its trademark infringement claim against IJR Capital Investments, LLC’s name for its proposed restaurant, “The Krusty Krab.”

“The Krusty Krab” is a fictional restaurant that, since 1999, has appeared on Nickelodeon’s animated television series “SpongeBob SquarePants.” In response to IJR’s filing of an intent-to-use application for THE KRUSTY KRAB and preparations to use that mark in connection with restaurant services., Viacom sued alleging, among other things, trademark infringement and dilution. 

Because Viacom had no federal trademark registration for “The Krusty Krab,” Viacom first had to prove that it owned valid common law rights in the mark. The Court found that Viacom owned rights because: (1) it has used “The Krusty Krab” continuously since 1999; (2) “The Krusty Krab” was featured in 166 of 203 episodes; (3) “The Krusty Krab” was depicted in two SpongeBob feature films released in 2004 and 2015, which had total gross receipts of over $470 million; and (4) Viacom sells licensed “The Krusty Krab” consumer products. The Court rejected IJR’s argument that Viacom could not establish trademark rights in the title of a fictional restaurant, stating that trademark protection can extend to specific ingredients of a successful television series, including symbols, design elements, and characters which the public directly associates with the plaintiff or its product.

The Court also found a likelihood of confusion. Among other things, Viacom had a strong mark, the parties’ marks were identical, and there was an overlap in customer base. With respect to the similarity of the services, the Court found that IJR’s actual restaurant was sufficiently similar to Viacom’s fictional restaurant because consumers could mistakenly believe that IJR’s restaurant was licensed or otherwise authorized by Viacom. Viacom also produced survey evidence showing that 30% of respondents believe a restaurant named “The Krusty Krab” is operated or sponsored by Viacom. Because all of the likelihood-of-confusion factors supported Viacom, the Court granted Viacom summary judgment on its infringement claim.

The case is Viacom Int’l Inc. v. IJR Capital Investments, LLC, Case No. H-16-257.

Tags

likelihood of confusion, trademark dilution

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Contacts

Jonathan D. Uffelman
Domain Name Specialist / Attorney
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4328
Email
Naresh Kilaru
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4236
Email

Copyright © 2017 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Lecture

IPIC/McGill Summer IP Course 2026: Understanding Trademarks

July 14, 2026

Montreal

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Lecture

Munich Licensing Summer Course 2026

June 18-19, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 Copyright Society Annual Meeting

June 14-16, 2026

Louisville

Conference

17th Summit on Biosimilars & Innovator Biologics

June 2-3, 2026

New York

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP