navigate the system and repair shops could have difficulty cost effectively providing service for their customers.”[1]
Intellectual property rights foster innovation by protecting significant investments in research and development. Two commenters raised intellectual property laws as lessening competition or creating restrictions in the repair marketplace. First, the International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics identified patent and trademark laws as “barriers for consumers and the repair sector to buy, sell and carry out repairs,” in both the United States and the European Union.[2] The submission noted that patent and trademark laws create barriers in conducting repairs not authorized by the OEM, the importing, selling, distribution, or manufacturing of tools, and the manufacturing, selling, and importing of spare parts.[3]
Second, the Automotive Body Parts Association (“ABPA”) asserted that car manufacturers’ use of intellectual property laws results in rising costs for repairs and repair parts.[4] In its empirical research submission, the ABPA alleged that “[t]he misuse of design patents on repair parts to block competition from producing equivalent parts is creating an environment with less competition and a significant pricing increase in the marketplace.”[5] In its post-Workshop comments, the ABPA also asserted that original equipment manufacturers are attempting to disrupt supply chains for aftermarket parts, thus reducing competition for original parts, by increasingly alleging trademark infringement at the point of entry when aftermarket collision repair parts are imported into the US.[6]
According to right to repair advocates, another tactic used to restrict independent repair is OEM efforts to promote their own parts and affiliate repair networks. A number of commenters also raised concerns about OEMs disparaging the quality of aftermarket parts and independent repairs.[7] The record most strongly reflects this with respect to the automobile industry. For example, the Auto Care Association cited a bulletin released by Honda “disparaging the use of non-original equipment (OE) parts” and a bulletin from Kia “that warned against the use of an aftermarket oil filter.”[8] Safelite AutoGlass, the “nations [sic] largest purchaser of Original Equipment Equivalent (OEE) replacement vehicle glass,” reported that vehicle manufacturers
- ↑ Auto Care Association comment, at 3.
- ↑ International Institute for Industrial Environmental Economics empirical research, at 4–6.
- ↑ Id.
- ↑ Automotive Body Parts Association, Consumer Issues in the Collison Repair Industry (“ABPA presentation”), at 18–19, https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC-2019-0013-0088.
- ↑ Automotive Body Parts Association empirical research, (“ABPA empirical research”) at 1.
- ↑ ABPA presentation at 13.
- ↑ Of course, if a company had appropriate substantiation for a claim that its product or service was superior, that claim would not violate Section 5 of the FTC Act.
- ↑ Auto Care Association comment, at 4. See also MEMA empirical research, at 11–13 (arguing that several automobile manufacturers disparage non-OEM parts in order to “cast doubt on legitimate competitors and encourage consumers and repairers to return to new car dealers for replacement parts.”).
22
