Let us assume, for a moment, that doo-wop rip-offs are a problem of pressing public importance. Let us also assume that the accused performers in question own the right to perform under the trademark (or service mark) in question, that is, the name of the group, as a matter of federal law, and that by virtue of compliance with federal trademark law, there is no actionable likelihood of confusion. (If there were, of course, trademark suits would have proliferated like hotcakes by now, judging from the howls of protest emanating from “authentic” doo-woppers.)
Then: In the unlikely event that the public authorities charged with enforcing this new state “consumer protection” law actually do try to enforce it, under what scenario is the statute not preempted?
I put “consumer protection” in quotation marks to highlight the notion that someone is being protected here, but it isn’t the consumer. Bowser (above left) can’t sue Bowser (right). Can he?