House Judiciary Subcommittee holds design law hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A hearing was held Feb. 14 by U.S. House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property titled “Design Law: Are Special Provisions Needed to Protect Unique Industries?” The hearing focused on the automotive and fashion industries.

Representing the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers was Carl Olsen, president of Ark Design. During his testimony, Olsen said: “Designing a new vehicle is not cheap! It requires a team of well-trained talented designers working in competition, proposing a large number of creative solutions. Each part – from headlamps to door handles – receives tender, loving care. This methodology assists management to make rational decisions on the final appearance of a new vehicle. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to create unique, distinctive exterior designs for vehicles.” Olsen noted that “industrial design protection for the auto industry projects numerous high-paying design and manufacturing jobs and also the automobile industry’s huge investment in the United States is consistent with the underlying policy goals of U.S. intellectual property law.” He concluded by saying “those seeking to weaken American Intellectual Property protection do not create their own designs. They exist only to make exact copies of parts designs they did not create.”

Jack Gillis, director of public affairs for the Consumer Federation of America, said: “The lack of competition for repair parts will result in several problems for consumers. For example, high repair costs will lead to more vehicles being ‘totaled’ because the price of repairing the damage exceeds the value of the vehicle. High repair costs will lead to higher insurance premiums. Furthermore, when faced with expensive repairs and a limited budget, consumers may forego important car repairs such as replacing a headlight or a broken side mirror – items essential for safe driving. Unless Congress addresses the automakers’ use of design patents on their crash parts, the American public will be faced with mounting repair bills, more ‘totaled’ vehicles, increasing insurance costs, and deferring necessary repairs affecting safety.” Gillis claimed that a solution to this “increasingly unfair, unacceptable, and unnecessary mess is for Congress to adopt a ‘repair clause’ in the design patent law that would preserve the consumer’s access to a competitive marketplace for quality alternative crash parts.”

For additional information visit www.TakingTheHill.com.