## Facts

- A novelty-teeth product was created by individuals who later formed a company to manufacture and sell oversized, comedic fake teeth under the “Billy-Bob Teeth” name.
- The business achieved substantial sales and publicity and used consistent product appearance and packaging in marketing its novelty teeth line.
- A competitor began selling similar novelty teeth products that were modeled on Billy-Bob’s designs.
- Consumers complained to Billy-Bob about the competitor’s product quality, indicating confusion as to source.
- Billy-Bob obtained copyright registrations covering certain teeth designs and asserted trade dress rights in the overall look of its product line and associated presentation.
- Billy-Bob sued the competitor for copyright infringement and trade dress infringement.
- A jury found for Billy-Bob on both claims and awarded damages.
- Post-verdict, the district court set aside the copyright damages (finding the copyrights invalid due to ownership/assignment defects), conditionally granted a new trial on copyright damages, and left the trade dress judgment and damages intact.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral agreement to transfer copyright ownership, later memorialized in a signed writing, satisfies 17 U.S.C. § 204(a)’s writing requirement.
2. Whether the district court erred in invalidating the asserted copyrights and setting aside the jury’s copyright damages award.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported protectable trade dress and likelihood of confusion, and whether the trade dress jury instructions were reversible error.
4. Whether challenged damages and evidentiary rulings warranted reversal or a new trial.

## Decision

- Reversed the district court’s order setting aside the jury’s copyright damages and reinstated the copyright damages award.
- Held that a signed writing executed later can operate as a confirmatory memorandum of an earlier oral copyright transfer and satisfy § 204(a) where the transferor does not dispute the transfer.
- Affirmed the trade dress judgment and damages, finding sufficient evidence of distinctiveness/secondary meaning, nonfunctionality, and likely confusion, and no reversible instructional error.
- Rejected the competitor’s cross-appeal on liability and most damages-related objections, holding the trial court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings were within its discretion.

## Legal Principles

- 17 U.S.C. § 204(a)’s signed-writing requirement may be satisfied by a later-executed writing that confirms an earlier oral agreement to transfer copyright ownership.
- The function of § 204(a) is to reduce fraud and ownership disputes between putative transferors and transferees; it is not aimed at undoing a transfer both sides acknowledge.
- Trade dress in a product line may be protectable if the overall look is nonfunctional and distinctive (including via secondary meaning), and infringement turns on likelihood of consumer confusion.
- Appellate review of evidentiary and many trial-management decisions is deferential; reversal requires a showing that the challenged ruling was an abuse of discretion and materially affected the outcome.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit reinstated the jury’s copyright damages because a later signed assignment validly confirmed an earlier oral transfer under § 204(a), and it affirmed the trade dress verdict and damages based on evidence that the competitor closely copied a protectable overall product appearance likely to confuse consumers.


Billy-Bob Teeth, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 329 F.3d 586 (7th Cir. 2003)