Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—NDCal: No Acquittal or New Trial for AU Optronics Executive Convicted on Price-Fixing Charges
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Canada Competition Bureau Finds Metal Products Producer and Distributor Combination Unlikely to Harm Competition
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: GE Acquisition of Lufkin Granted Early Termination of HSR Waiting Period
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Pennsylvania Law Firm Files Antitrust Complaint Against Competitor over Exclusive Advertising Contracts
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Brill Emphasizes FTC Consumer Protection Activities in Financial Services in Speech to Public Policy Institute
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Seller of Prepaid Calling Cards Settles FTC Charges
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION—3rdCir: Disappointed Consumer’s Claims Against FTC, New Jersey Attorney General Fail
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION—NDIll: FTC Act Claim Transferred to More Convenient Forum
    • INDUSTRY NEWS: Antitrust Economics Consulting Firm Compass Lexecon Acquires Princeton Economics Group
    • INDUSTRY NEWS: Competition Attorney Meyer-Lindemann Joins Dechert
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—CDUtah: Absent Consumer Transaction, Company Could Not State Utah Consumer Sales Practice Act Claim
    • STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—EDMi: Trade Dress Misrepresentation Claims Under Consumer Protection Act Were Preempted by Copyright Act
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES—EDMi: Trade Dress Misrepresentation Claims Under Consumer Protection Act Were Preempted by Copyright Act, (May 3, 2013)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Bodman PLC | Hooper Hathaway, P.C.
    Organizations Mentioned:Lowe's | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | RSR Sales, Inc.

    By Jody Coultas, J.D.

    RSR Sales, Inc. could not state a Michigan Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim against Lowe’s Companies, Inc. for allegedly selling products that were substantially similar to RSR’s products because the claims were preempted by the Copy ...

    By Jody Coultas, J.D.

    RSR Sales, Inc. could not state a Michigan Consumer Protection Act (CPA) claim against Lowe’s Companies, Inc. for allegedly selling products that were substantially similar to RSR’s products because the claims were preempted by the Copyright Act, according to the federal district court in Detroit (RSR Sales, Inc. v. Lowe’s Companies, Inc., May 2, 2013, Drain, G.).

    RSR designs and imports home and garden products, and owned a federally registered copyright for its gazing globes featuring a decorative swirl pattern. Lowe’s allegedly sold a "garden treasures" gazing ball, which closely resembled RSR’s gazing globes, leading RSR to file the CPA claim. Lowe’s argued that the CPA claim was preempted by the Copyright Act.

    State laws are preempted if the work at issue is within the scope of the subject matter of copyright and the rights granted under state law are equivalent to any exclusive rights within the scope of federal copyright.

    The grazing globes were within the subject matter of copyright, according to the court. RSR’s claim was based on the reproduction of its gazing globe, a tangible medium that includes "pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works."

    RSR’s CPA claim was preempted by the Copyright Act, according to the court. The basis of the CPA claim was that Lowe’s caused confusion over the source of the gazing balls. Although RSR avoided using the word "copy," the claim was based on copying. The alleged confusion and misrepresentation arose from copying RSR’s gazing globe. RSR argued the CPA claim was distinctive because it emphasized trade dress and the confusion resulting from the wrongful use of its trade dress. However, the allegations did not change the fact that no additional element was required to satisfy the CPA.

    The case is No. 12-10719.

    Attorneys: Angela L. Jackson (Hooper Hathaway, P.C.) for RSR Sales, Inc. Alan N. Harris (Bodman PLC) for Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

    Companies: RSR Sales, Inc.; Lowe’s Companies, Inc.

    Cases: StateUnfairTradePractices MichiganNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use