that the claim was not preempted because it was based on the defendant’s intentional misrepresentation to the plaintiff. In that situation, “the fraud and not the actual copyright violation would be the gravamen of the claim.” 956 F.Supp. at 587. Here, by contrast, Hillsdale has alleged no fraud; no relationship existed between the parties prior to the acts constituting the alleged infringement. The copyright violation remains the gravamen of the claim. Moreover, the court notes that Hillsdale has not alleged that Collezione deceptively “palmed off’ its furniture as the Bordeaux Collection, such that consumers believed that the T-6985 Group was actually the Bordeaux Collection. See Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 238, 84 S.Ct. 779, 782, 11 L.Ed.2d 669 (1964) (<HOLDING>). Hillsdale has pointed to no other case in
recognizing tort of palming off even where article at issue not protected by federal copyright law recognizing that copyright offices interpretation of copyright act should ordinarily receive deference holding that even if utah law recognized tort of misappropriation such a claim would be preempted by copyright act holding that while the computer program at issue was within the subject matter of copyright the right sought under state law pursuant to a license was not equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright as such copyright preemption did not apply recognizing that patent protection extends to elements not protected adequately by copyright