Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04931/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-04931-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY WALKER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VIACOM INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 06-4931 SI

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

On May 7, 2008, the Court heard argument on defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Having considered the arguments of counsel and the parties’ papers, the Court hereby GRANTS

defendants’ motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Troy Walker has sued defendants Viacom International Inc., Nickelodeon Studios, Inc.,

Paramount Studios, Inc., and Stephen Hillenburg, the creator and Executive Producer of the animated

children’s television series on Nickelodeon called SpongeBob SquarePants (“SBSP”), alleging that

defendants’ series infringes plaintiff’s copyright for his comic strip “Mr. Bob Spongee ‘The

Unemployed Sponge.’” 

I. Plaintiff’s comic strip and novelty sponge

Plaintiff Troy Walker is an artist living in northern California. Plaintiff claims that in the fall

of 1991 he drew a four-panel, black and white comic strip titled “Mr. Bob Spongee, The Unemployed

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Defendants have objected to portions of plaintiff’s declaration on numerous grounds. The

Court sustains these objections, finding that numerous statements are argumentative, lack foundation,

and/or contain impermissible legal conclusions. For example, plaintiff states in his declaration that

defendants “copied” his work, that Mr. Bob Spongee and SpongeBob SquarePants are “strikingly

similar,” and that the pilot episode for SBSP “represents an obvious continuum from the last scene of

the BOB SPONGEE comic strip.” The Court also sustains defendants’ objection to Exhibit F to

plaintiff’s declaration. Plaintiff prepared that exhibit, which consists of “various graphics to illustrate

the amazing similarities between BOB SPONGEE and SPONGEBOB.” Walker Decl. ¶ 16 & Ex. F.

This exhibit is argumentative, conclusory, and contains hearsay.

2

 Walker no longer has any of the original sponges; he recreated the sponges for this litigation.

3

 Walker no longer has any of the header cards, so this information is provided from memory

in Walker’s declaration.

2

Sponge.” Walker Decl. ¶ 4 & Ex. A (comic strip)1

 The main character is Mr. Bob Spongee, a single

dimension, rectangular-shaped kitchen sponge with arms, legs and shoes, round googly eyes, line

eyebrows, a dot for a nose and a line for a mouth. According to the strip, he lives with his wife Linda

and daughter Bubbles on Apple Street, in a small house with a pitched roof and picket fence. The third

panel of the strip says, “Mr. Spongee Use [sic] To Work At The Local Soap Factory . . .”, and the fourth

and final panel says, “One Day He Was Told By His Foreman That He Was Laid Off . . .” Id. Ex. A.

This is the only comic strip that plaintiff created. 

Later in 1991 Walker created his novelty sponges, which consisted of various colored kitchen

sponges (yellow, light pink, and turquoise), on which he drew a mouth and nose with a felt-tip marker,

and to which he and his mother affixed prefabricated “googly eyes.” Duffy Decl. Ex. A at 71-73

(Walker Depo.); Ex. C at 23:20-22 (Jean Walker Depo.); Ex. D (picture of sponge).2

 Walker glued his

comic strip to the back of these sponges and put them in clear plastic packages with a header card, the

front of which pictured another representation of Mr. Spongee and contained the caption, “Sponge For

Hire – MEET Bob Spongee, THE UNEMPLOYED SPONGE.” Id. Ex. D.3 Walker distributed

approximately one thousand of these sponges between January 1992 and November 1992 in the San

Francisco Bay Area in shopping centers, street fairs, flea markets, on the side of the road, and at stops

along the Grapevine area of Highway 5. Walker Decl. ¶ 6; Duffy Decl. Ex. B Nos. 5, 6, 8; Ex. A at

149:13-24; 150:6-7; 152:5-153:14. Most of the novelty sponges were distributed in the “707” area code.

Duffy Decl. Ex. B, No. 8.

Walker also advertised the sponge doll in the international classified pages of the Oakland

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Tribune on approximately six occasions in 1991 under the caption “SPONGE FOR HIRE! Meet BOB

SPONGEE, The Unemployed Sponge”; the character depicted in the advertisement differs from the

comic strip drawing in that the advertisement sponge wears a hat and shirt, has hair, different-shaped

eyes, a larger rounded nose, and different shaped mouth. Id. Ex. M (advertisement). Walker sold fewer

than twenty sponges through this advertisement. Id. Ex. B, No. 9. Walker stopped all sales and

distribution of the sponges in November 1992. Id. No. 5. 

Walker has admitted that the comic strip was published solely through his personal distribution

of the novelty sponge, and that he has no knowledge of ever having sent it to any defendant or anybody

affiliated with any of them, whether affixed to the sponge or otherwise. Id., Nos. 3, 16. 

In April 2003, after defendants’ television series SpongeBob SquarePants first aired, Walker

registered his comic strip with the United States Copyright Office. First Amended Complaint, Ex. 4.

This is the only work for which Walker has a copyright registration. Duffy Decl. Ex. B, Nos. 1, 2. 

II. SpongeBob SquarePants

Stephen Hillenburg, the creator of SpongeBob Square Pants, describes the animated series as

follows:

SpongeBob SquarePants is an animated series aimed at pre-teens. The Series is set

under the sea in the Pacific Ocean, a few fathoms beneath the tropical isle of Bikini

Atoll, in the subsurface city of Bikini Bottom. . . . Much of the action takes place at the

Krusty Krab where SpongeBob SquarePants works and many of his friends visit. Other

settings include SpongeBob’s pineapple house, Jellyfish Fields, and Goo Lagoon, to

name a few. . . . 

The central character of the Series, SpongeBob SquarePants, is a rectangular yellow

porous sea sponge, who almost always wears brown pants, which make him appear

squarish rather than rectangular, a white shirt, a red tie, athletic socks and black shoes.

As an animated character, he has innumerable facial expressions, but he is often seen

with his mouth open showing two protruding teeth, like a big kid. He has round

expressive eyes with blue irises and exactly three eyelashes above each eye. He lives

in a fully furnished pineapple under the sea, with his pet snail, Gary.

Hillenburg Decl. ¶¶ 16-17.

Hillenburg states that the idea for SpongeBob SquarePants dates back to 1989, when he was

working as an instructor and staff artist at the Orange County Marine Institute and created an

educational comic book featuring talking sea creatures, including an amorphous-shaped sea sponge

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

named “Bob the Sponge.” Duffy Decl. Ex. E at 53:5-18, 61:1-13 (Hillenburg Depo.); Hillenburg Decl.

Ex. A (portions of comic book “The Intertidal Zone” featuring “Bob the Sponge”). Hillenburg states

that during a few summers after graduating from high school, he worked as a fry cook and lobster boiler

at a restaurant in Maine, and that this experience later became the inspiration for the job held by the

main character in the SBSP series, who is the fry cook at the “Krusty Krab” fast food restaurant.

Hillenburg Decl. ¶ 2. Hillenburg has a degree in Natural Resources, Planning and Interpretation with

an emphasis in Marine Resources, and he states that he has had an interest in and love for the ocean

since he was a child. Id. ¶ 3. 

Five years later, in 1994, while Hillenburg was working as the art director for another animated

cartoon series on Nickelodeon, Hillenburg began developing the character and concepts for what

became SBSP. Hillenburg states,

Drawing on my background as a marine biologist, my love for the ocean and all of the

characters and the setting of The Intertidal Zone, I decided to make an under-the-sea

show starring many of the characters inspired by The Intertidal Zone but steeped in surf

culture and nautical kitsch (for example, rope works, barrels and treasure chests). I

wanted the star of the show to be an innocent nerd and I thought again of a sea sponge

as it is bizarre and versatile, and very elastic (it can supposedly reshape itself if placed

in a blender) much like cartoon characters that miraculously reform after calamitous

disasters. Its goofy shape is also easy to animate because it can emote and communicate

through its various shapes.

Around the fall of 1994, starting with my “Bob the Sponge” character from The

Intertidal Zone, I began conceptually drawing in what became several sketch books.

[Copies of a few exemplars from early drawings are attached as Exhibit C to

Hillenburg’s declaration] As these drawings progressed, I began to narrow in on specific

concepts and I started to add more detail. For example, [on one page] there is more

detail on the eyes, the character now has irises and three eyelashes, he has two buck teeth

and he’s wearing a tie, pants, shoes and a hat.

As it was common practice to share ideas, sketches and story lines for prospective

pitches with co-workers during the creative process to gain perspective and feedback,

I shared my concepts for the show and many of my early drawings with several of my

co-workers on Rocko’s Modern Life, including Nick Jennings, Mark O’Hare and Derek

Drymon, all of whom, I have been informed, have had their depositions taken in this

action. I also showed my drawings to Adriana Galvez, a background painter on Rocko’s

Modern Life; I am informed that her deposition has also been taken. Adriana suggested

that I consider a sink sponge as the design for my character, instead of a natural-shaped

sea sponge. With her suggestion in mind, I revised my drawings, retaining the idea of

a living sea sponge, but locking onto the idea of a square shape, which I thought fit

perfectly the innocent, nerd image and the series theme of a character forever stuck

between a boy and a man. By the spring of 1995, I had drawn what I consider to be the

first drawing of SpongeBob SquarePants or, as he was then known, “Sponge Boy”.

[Drawing is attached as Exhibit D to Hillenburg’s declaration]

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 4 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

Id. ¶¶ 8-10. 

Hillenburg and others pitched the SBSP idea to Nickelodeon, and in 1997, Hillenburg created

the pilot, entitled “Help Wanted.” Id. ¶¶ 12-13. Hillenburg states that sometime after completing the

pilot, while the sponge character was still called “Sponge Boy,” he learned that they could not use that

name because a third party held a trademark in that name, and so he reverted back to “Bob” of the Bob

the Sponge from The Intertidal Zone. Id. ¶ 14. According to Hillenburg, the addition of “SquarePants”

as the character’s last name was inspired when Tom Kenny, who became the voice of SpongeBob

SquarePants, described the character as a sponge with square pants and a tie. Id.

The SBSP show was picked up for series production, with the first episode airing in 1999. Since

that time, over one hundred episodes have been created spanning six seasons. Id. ¶ 15. One of several

compilation DVDs that have been released is titled “Sponge for Hire.” Id. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary adjudication is proper when “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56©.

In a motion for summary judgment, “[if] the moving party for summary judgment meets its

initial burden of identifying for the court those portions of the materials on file that it believes

demonstrate the absence of any genuine issues of material fact, the burden of production then shifts so

that the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts

showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” See T.W. Elec. Service, Inc., v. Pac. Elec. Contractors

Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). In

judging evidence at the summary judgment stage, the Court does not make credibility determinations

or weigh conflicting evidence, and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving

party. See T.W. Electric, 809 F.2d at 630-31 (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio

Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)); Ting v. United States, 927 F.2d 1504, 1509 (9th Cir. 1991). The evidence

presented by the parties must be admissible. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conclusory, speculative

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 5 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

testimony in affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat

summary judgment. See Thornhill Publ’g Co., Inc. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th Cir. 1979).

DISCUSSION

“A plaintiff bringing a claim for copyright infringement must demonstrate (1) ownership of a

valid copyright, and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.” Funky Films,

Inc. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., 462 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations

omitted). Where, as here, there is no evidence of direct copying – and plaintiff does not claim otherwise

– the second element requires plaintiff to prove that defendants had access to plaintiff’s copyrighted

work and that there is substantial similarity of protected elements between the two works. See Rice v.

Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 2003). “[S]ummary judgment is appropriate if,

after viewing the evidence and drawing inferences in a manner most favorable to the non-moving party,

no reasonable jury could find substantial similarity of ideas and expression.” Funky Films, 462 F.3d

at 1076. Although “‘summary judgment is not highly favored on the substantial similarity issue in

copyright cases,’ Berkic v. Crichton, 761 F.2d 1289, 1292 (9th Cir. 1985), substantial similarity ‘may

often be decided as a matter of law.’ Sid & Marty Kroff Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp.,

562 F.2d 1157, 1164 (9th Cir. 1977).” Id. at 1076-77. 

To determine whether two works are substantially similar, courts apply a two-part analysis: an

extrinsic test and an intrinsic test. Metcalf v. Bochco, 294 F.3d 1069, 1073 (9th Cir. 2002). “For

summary judgment, only the extrinsic test is important.” Kouf v. Walt Disney Pictures & Television,

16 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir.1994). “[A] plaintiff who cannot satisfy the extrinsic test necessarily loses

on summary judgment, because a jury may not find substantial similarity without evidence on both the

extrinsic and intrinsic tests.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit has stated that the extrinsic test is an objective measure of the “articulable

similarities between the plot, themes, dialogue, mood, setting, pace, characters, and sequence of events.”

Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In applying the extrinsic test, courts must distinguish

between the protectable and unprotectable material because a party claiming infringement may place

“no reliance upon any similarity in expression resulting from unprotectable elements.” Apple Computer,

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 6 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted).

I. Protection for the “Bob Spongee” character 

Prior to filing suit, plaintiff obtained copyright registration for “BOB SPONGEE ‘The

Unemployed Sponge’” as a “Cartoon and Comic Strip.” FAC, Ex. 4. Attached to the application was

a copy of the comic strip only; neither the sponge doll nor the Oakland Tribune advertisement was

included with the application. Defendants contend that plaintiff’s copyright claim must be based solely

on the comic strip because plaintiff did not register either the doll or the advertisement, and because the

depictions of “Bob Spongee” are different in the comic strip, the doll, and the Oakland Tribune

advertisement. 

Plaintiff contends that the Bob Spongee character is entitled to copyright protection as a standalone character because he is an extremely consistent, distinct and identifiable character who

“dominates” the comic strip. A character (as opposed to the work in which it appears) is protectable if

it is “especially distinctive” such that it has widely “identifiable traits.” Walt Disney Prods. v. Air

Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 755-56 (9th Cir. 1978) (extending protection over Mickey Mouse and other

Disney characters with distinctively delineated visual and conceptual characteristics); Toho Co., Ltd.

v. William Morrow & Co., Inc., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (same for Godzilla); MetroGoldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., 900 F. Supp. 1287, 1297 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (same for

James Bond).

Here, the comic strip consists of four small and largely uninformative black and white panels.

From them, all the reader learns is that “Mr. Bob Spongee” lives on Apple Street, has a wife (Linda) and

daughter (Bubbles), that he used to work in a soap factory, and that he is now unemployed. The strip

conveys nothing about Linda and Bubbles (neither of whom appears to be a sponge), and little to no

information about Mr. Bob Spongee’s personality or character traits; Mr. Bob Spongee appears in two

of the four panels, he is smiling in one panel, and has what could be described as a concerned expression

in the other. There is very little story line. Mr. Bob Spongee’s physical traits are similarly ill-defined.

He is one-dimensional; he is rectangular with hands, legs and feet but no clothing; the sponge does not

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 7 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

 Indeed, the Court notes that the Oakland Tribune advertisement version strongly resembles

“Barney Rubble” from the animated television series, The Flintstones.

8

have any texturing; and his facial features are simplistic with lines for eyebrows, round eyes, a dot for

a nose, and a line for a mouth.

Not only is the comic strip character not distinctive, but Mr. Bob Spongee is not consistently

depicted between the comic strip, the sponge doll, and the Oakland Tribune advertisement. The sponge

“doll” was produced in three different colors, had movable “googly eyes,” and did not have arms or legs,

while the Oakland Tribune advertisement version does not even appear to be a sponge. Instead, the

drawing looks more human,4

 has hair, ears, different shaped eyes and nose, is wearing a hat and a shirt,

and wearing different shaped shoes than in the comic strip. This lack of consistency defeats plaintiff’s

claim that the stand-alone character of “BOB SPONGEE” is protected. See Rice v. Fox Broadcasting

Co., 148 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1056 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (no protection for “Mystery Musician” because he

was not consistently portrayed in various appearances), aff’d on point, rev’d on other grounds, 330 F.3d

at 1175 (9th Cir. 2003); cf. Toho, 33 F. Supp. 2d at 1216 (Godzilla protectable as a character because

“Godzilla has likewise developed a constant set of traits . . . [with] an underlying set of attributes that

remain in every film. Godzilla is always a pre-historic, fire-breathing, gigantic dinosaur alive and well

in the modern world.”). Thus, plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim must be based on the Mr. Bob

Spongee comic strip, and not on the novelty doll or the Oakland Tribune advertisement. 

II. Access

Defendants contend that plaintiff cannot raise a triable issue of fact as to whether defendants had

access to plaintiff’s creation. To prove access, plaintiff must show that defendants had a reasonable

opportunity to view or copy plaintiff’s work prior to the creation of SBSP. See Three Boys Music Corp.

v. Bolton, 212 F.3d 477, 482 (9th Cir. 2000). Reasonable opportunity is “more than a bare possibility.”

Jason v. Fonda, 698 F.2d 966, 967 (9th Cir. 1982); Three Boys, 212 F.3d at 482. “Of course, reasonable

opportunity as here used, does not encompass any bare possibility in the sense that anything is possible.

Access may not be inferred through mere speculation or conjecture. There must be a reasonable

possibility of viewing the plaintiff’s work – not a bare possibility.” Three Boys, 212 F.3d at 482

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 8 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

(quoting 4 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.02[A], at 13-19).

Here, defendants have submitted the following evidence showing that they did not have access

to plaintiff’s work prior to the creation of SBSP: (1) Hillenburg denies having seen or heard of Walker’s

works prior to this lawsuit; (2) Walker has admitted that he did not send the comic strip (or the novelty

sponge) to any defendant, or to anyone known to be affiliated with them; (3) Walker cannot identify any

of the approximately twenty individuals who purchased a novelty sponge through his newspaper

advertisement, nor has he established a link between anyone who purchased a sponge and any

defendant. In addition, there is no evidence that the comic strip was widely disseminated; the comic

strip was never published except on the package header and glued to the back of less than one thousand

novelty sponges. Any unsold sponges were destroyed soon after November1992. Duffy Decl. Ex. A

at 141:14-24; 93:1-94:8; Ex. B, Nos. 3-6.

Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence showing that any defendant, or anyone associated with

any defendant, had access to his work prior to the creation of SBSP. Instead, plaintiff asserts that there

is evidence of access because Hillenburg traveled to Sonoma in northern California for New Year’s Eve

in 1991/1992, and to San Francisco for New Year’s Eve 1993/1994. Duffy Decl. Ex. E at 43-46. The

Court notes that these visits both pre- and post-dated the period (January - November 1992) when

plaintiff was distributing the novelty sponges. Plaintiff also suggests that Hillenburg had access to

plaintiff’s works because Hillenburg’s brother lived in San Jose during the 1990s; however, plaintiff has

not submitted any evidence showing that Hillenburg’s brother had access to plaintiff’s work. 

Plaintiff’s showing falls far short of raising a triable issue of fact on access. The Court finds

instructive Jason v. Fonda, 526 F. Supp. 774 (C.D. Cal. 1981), aff’d, 698 F.2d 966 (9th Cir. 1982), in

which the plaintiff claimed that the defendants had copied her book about the effects of the Vietnam

War on returning soldiers when they made the movie Coming Home. The Jason court granted summary

judgment in favor of the defendants, holding, inter alia, “[i]n sum, there is not one shred of evidence

that any of the defendants who were involved in producing ‘Coming Home’ had access to Jason’s book

during production except for plaintiff’s undisputed claim that between 200 and 700 copies were

available through various Southern California bookstores. That level of availability creates no more than

a ‘bare possibility’ that defendants may have had access to plaintiff’s book.” Id. at 776-77; see also Art

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 9 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Attacks Ink, LLC v. MGA Entertainment, Inc., 2007 WL 1989631, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 2, 2007) (holding

geographical proximity of corporate and individual defendants’ office and residence to fairs where

plaintiff sold art featuring cartoon characters insufficient to defeat summary judgment as a matter of

law); Levine v. Oxford Press, 1993 WL 377630, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 1993) (granting summary

judgment to defendant in copyright infringement case where, inter alia, plaintiff’s only evidence of

access was that defendant resided in same area as person who allegedly gave defendant plaintiff’s

manuscript). 

III. Similarity

Plaintiff contends that he need not have evidence of access because the following shared

characteristics between the two works are so strikingly similar that only copying can account for the

similarity: (1) both are anthropomorphized rectangular sponges; (2) both are named “Bob”; (3) both

have “nearly identical eyes”; (4) both have “nearly identical smiles”; (5) both have arms and legs that

are very similar; (6) both have “nearly identical shoes”; (7) both are looking for work; and (8) both have

been associated with the term “Sponge for Hire.”

“There is an inverse relationship between access and probative similarity such that the stronger

the proof of similarity, the less the proof of access is required.” Jorgensen v. Epic/Sony Records, 351

F.3d 46, 52 (2d Cir. 2003) (internal quotation omitted). “[W]here the works in question are so strikingly

similar as to preclude the possibility of independent creation, copying may be proved without a showing

of access.” Id. at 56 (internal quotation omitted). “In all cases, the task is to apply logic and experience

to determine if copying is the only realistic basis for the similarities at hand.” 4 Melville B. Nimmer

& David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, § 13.02[B] at 13-28.1. 

Plaintiff relies on Ty, Inc. v. GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167 (7th Cir. 1997). In that case,

the plaintiff Ty, Inc., manufactured “Beanie Babies” and had obtained an injunction against the

defendant preventing the defendant from selling an infringing stuffed bean-bag pig. The Seventh Circuit

upheld the injunction, finding a striking similarity between the two stuffed bean-bag pigs. The court

noted that the infringing pig looked almost identical to the Beanie Baby pig in that they had identical

snouts, were the same size and shape, neither stuffed pig looked like an actual pig, and both stuffed pigs

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 10 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

 The differences between the Oakland Tribune advertisement and SpongeBob SquarePants, and

between the sponge doll and SpongeBob SquarePants, are even more numerous. The character depicted

in the advertisement does not resemble a sponge and instead looks human, has hair, ears, a bulbous nose,

human-shaped feet, and is wearing a hat. The sponge doll (assuming it is an accurate replication of the

original) is very simplistic, does not have arms or legs, and has lines for eyebrows, a round dot nose,

and a line for a mouth.

11

had three toes, rather than cloven hooves (as actual pigs have). Id. at 1170-71. 

Here, the similarities between “Mr. Bob Spongee” and SpongeBob SquarePants are much less

striking. Plaintiff emphasizes the facts that both characters use the name “Bob” and are

anthropomorphized sponges; however, not only is “Bob” a common name, but more importantly,

defendant Hillenburg has submitted uncontroverted evidence that he created “Bob the Sponge,” an

anthropomorphized sea sponge, in 1989 – two years before plaintiff created “Mr. Bob Spongee.” 

The only way in which the two characters are physically similar is that they are both rectangular

anthropomorphic sponges, with arms and legs, and big round eyes. However, these are simply stock

elements that flow from the idea of humanizing a sponge. Moreover, the differences between the comic

strip version of Mr. Bob Spongee – the only version that is copyrighted – and SpongeBob SquarePants

are numerous5

: Mr. Bob Spongee is one-dimensional and SpongeBob SquarePants is three-dimensional;

Mr. Bob Spongee is not textured, while SpongeBob SquarePants is textured; Mr. Bob Spongee has lines

for eyebrows and no eyelashes and SpongeBob Square Pants has no eyebrows and three eyelashes over

each eye; Mr. Bob Spongee is not wearing clothes, while SpongeBob SquarePants wears a shirt, tie,

shorts/pants, and socks; Mr. Bob Spongee has a line for a mouth and SpongeBob SquarePants has two

prominent buck teeth; and Mr. Bob Spongee has a dot nose while SpongeBob SquarePants has a pickleshaped nose. The simple fact that both are anthropomorphic sponges is insufficient to show striking

similarity. See Pasillas v. McDonald’s Corp., 927 F.2d 440, 443 (9th Cir. 1991) (no substantial

similarity between two masks depicting man in the moon when only similarities were crescent moon

shape, depiction of human face in the center of the crescent, white or off-white color, and design

enabling masks to be worn over person’s head); cf. Cory Van Rijn, Inc. v. California Raisin Advisory

Bd., 697 F. Supp. 1136, 1144-45 (E.D. Cal. 1987) (“common idea of anthropomorphic raisin” not

subject to copyright protection).

With regard to character traits or story line, as discussed supra, Mr. Bob Spongee is not wellCase 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 11 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

defined. However, aside from the fact that SpongeBob SquarePants is a well-defined character, there

are several obvious differences between the two characters: Mr. Bob Spongee lives above ground in a

house, while SpongeBob SquarePants lives in the ocean in a pineapple; Mr. Bob Spongee is married

with a daughter and SpongeBob SquarePants is not married and appears adolescent; and Mr. Bob

Spongee is an unemployed former soap factory worker, while SpongeBob SquarePants is an employed

cook at a restaurant. The Court disagrees with plaintiff’s assertion that the SBSP pilot is an “obvious

continuum” of the comic strip simply because Mr. Bob Spongee loses his job at the soap factory in the

final panel of the strip, while in the series pilot SpongeBob SquarePants gets his first job working as a

cook in a restaurant. Far from being strikingly similar, the two stories – to the extent that the comic strip

can be said to have a story – are opposite. 

Plaintiff notes that Mr. Bob Spongee lives on Apple Street while SpongeBob SquarePants lives

in a pineapple; there is nothing similar about these places other than that both are named after fruits.

Plaintiff also finds an alleged similarity in the fact that Mr. Bob Spongee’s daughter’s name is

“Bubbles” and SpongeBob SquarePants has a friend named Sandy Cheeks the Surfer Squirrel who has

a dome/crash helmet on her head. There is no physical likeness between Bubbles and Sandy Cheeks,

compare Walker Decl. Ex. A with Hillenburg Decl. Ex. E at VIA00246, and to find a similarity based

on “Bubbles” the name and the bubble-shaped crash helmet worn by Sandy Cheeks the squirrel is

ludicrous. Similarly, plaintiff asserts that the character of Linda, Mr. Bob Spongee’s wife, is similar to

SpongeBob SquarePant’s grandmother because both are submissive female characters. Linda is featured

in one of the four panels of the comic strip, and the only information the reader is provided about Linda

is her name and the fact that she is Mr. Bob Spongee’s wife and lives with him on Apple Street. The

comic strip provides no information to convey that Linda is submissive. 

In sum, the Court holds that the similarities between the two characters are limited to the stock

elements used to humanize a sponge, and that the dissimilarities are so significant that, as a matter of

law, defendants are entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement. In

addition, defendants have submitted extensive and undisputed evidence of defendants’ independent

creation of SpongeBob SquarePants, further supporting summary judgment in favor of defendants. See

Gal v. Viacom Int’l, Inc., 518 F. Supp. 2d 526, 548 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (granting summary judgment in

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 12 of 13
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

favor of defendants based on lack of similarity and noting that “evidence of independent creation

introduced by defendants can serve to bolster a finding of a lack of striking similarity.”).

IV. Attorneys’ fees

Defendants request an award of prevailing party attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505.

The Court finds that this case was brought in good faith, and exercises its discretion to DENY the

request for attorneys’ fees. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby GRANTS defendants’

motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 57).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2008 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-04931-SI Document 93 Filed 05/13/08 Page 13 of 13