6 Mr. Chairman, we believe that a careful examination of current U.S. design law leads to the conclusion that a new design statute, such as that proposed in H.R. 1179, is needed. First, as you can see, design protection already is available to some product innovators today. Those who make toys, teddy bears and table clothes can protect themselves from design piracy under the copyright and trademark laws. And, these laws provide a scope of protection generally much broader than that contained in H.R. 1179. However, product innovators who spend millions of dollars in aerodynamic and sculpturally beautiful automobiles, those who design sophisticated components for electronic equipment, medical laboratories or advanced industrial machinery are out of luck. Yet, toys and teddy bears will not supply America with the economic muscle she will need to compete in the 21st century. We will need to look to the kinds of industries represented in the Industrial Design Coalition for that. And, those industries clearly need a modern design law. H.R. 1179 Is Pro Consumer I believe that there is another lesson apparent in any examination of current U.S. law. Not only is it illogical and arbitrary in application, but the high level of protection already available to some industrial products under copyright and trademark principles belies the fear and criticism directed by some toward H.R. 1179. The most serious criticism of H.R. 1179 is that somehow it will stifle competition by granting limited exclusivity to design innovators. Yet, fabric and toy makers have now been protected for many years with an even more comprehensive form of intellectual property without any apparent anti-competitive effect. In fact, those are highly competitive industries. Perhaps the reason is that for every design protected by copyright, a new, different and perhaps even more attractive one can be created. The effect is to encourage creativity, diversity and the kind of competition that produces choices, not copies, for America's consumers. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1179 is a modest, carefully crafted bill which will fill a longstanding gap in U.S. law and bring us into line with other industrial nations. On behalf of the companies of the Industrial Design Coalition, we urge its enactment. MEMBERS OF THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGN COALITION Allied Linotype American Furniture Manufacturers Association Business and Institutional Furniture Manufacturers Association Chrysler Corporation Collier, Shannon, Rill and Scott Dresser Industries Economic Consulting Services, Inc. Furniture Design & Manufacturing High Technology Solutions La-Z-Boy Chair Company Mole-Richardson Company Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association Printing Industries of America Tuohy Furniture Corporation Co-sponsors of H.R. 379 and H.R. 1179 Honorable Cass Ballenger Honorable Edward P. Boland Honorable William S. Broomfield Honorable Albert G. Bustamante Honorable Ben Nighthorse Campbell Honorable Michael DeWine Honorable Joseph J. DioGuardi Honorable Dennis E. Eckart Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr. Honorable Dean A. Gallo Honorable Bart Gordon Honorable Paul B. Henry Honorable Henry J. Hyde Honorable Nancy L. Johnson Honorable Bob Wise Bruce A. Lehman Biographical Information Bruce A. Lehman is Counsel to the Industrial Design Coalition, consisting of more than 40 companies and trade associations committed to enactment of a modern law protecting industrial designs in the United States. A partner in the Washington D.C. law firm of Swidler & Berlin, Chartered, Mr. Lehman has been engaged in the private practice of law in the field of intellectual property for five and one-half years. Prior to entering private practice, he served for nine years as counsel to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives. Bruce Lehman is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and its law school. Mr. ENBORG. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Kenneth Enborg and I am the Chief Trademark and Copyright Counsel for General Motors Corporation. I'm here today on behalf of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. We welcome this opportunity to offer comments in support of legislation to extend intellectual property protection to industrial design. We believe it's critically important that Congress enact industrial design protection legislation, which would provide fairness to manufacturers, eliminate a competitive disadvantage facing U.S. producers, and benefit consumers. The proposed legislation, H.R. 1179, is an effort to afford limited, but reasonable protection in the United States for investment in creating useful, aesthetic, and innovative designs. It would stop the copying of original equipment sheet metal designs that result in inferior replacement parts being sold in direct competition with these original designs. Automobile body parts, referred to as exterior panels, are the visible sheet metal and/or plastic parts used in vehicle collision repair. We have an example to my left here of the kind of sheet metal exterior body panels that we're referring to. While exterior panels are also integral to the functioning of vehicles, it is their artistic aspect that clearly distinguishes them from other automotive parts. They are designed only once and only by or for an individual vehicle manufacturer to differentiate its product and to give it unique market appeal. These panels require protection under the proposed legislation from design theft and from free-riding. Vehicle producers go to extraordinary lengths and invest millions of dollars to develop and execute the most appealing possible car designs, only to have them copied and sold in direct competition to their original equipment manufacturer parts. The investment costs are those incurred in the designing, engineering, and tooling of body parts. Taking as an example a fender, like the one over to my left, the total investment can run from $4.5 million per fender up to almost $10 million, depending on the part, the vehicle, and the manufacturer. The unique and artistic creation that results is a product of great effort and expense. Design is often a major reason that consumers are attracted to a particular car. Today, non-OEM offshore manufacturers copy exterior vehicle designs and sell those parts without permission and without compensating the creator in any way. This free-riding should be illegal and is illegal in two of the countries which are our principal automobile competitors-Japan and Germany. In fact, most other major industrial nations in the world provide more effective industrial design protection than the United States. This puts U.S.-based producers at a competitive disadvantage. No automobile manufacturer, be it American, Japanese, German, French, et cetera, has adequate protection in the United States. Some people question the need for industrial design protection for vehicle exterior panels. The reasons should be clear. Exterior panels confer the basic appearance or styling that makes the vehicle what it is and yet, it is these individual parts that are vulnerable to copying. Copyright protection in the publishing field does not |