Analysing Doctrinal Grounds And Policy ‘Incentives’ Against Design Protection For Spare Parts In The Automotive Industry: Case Comment On Hero Moto Corp V. Shree Amba Industries

Vinayak Swaroop, B.A.LLB. (Hons.), National Law School of India University, Bangalore

INTRODUCTION

Under Section 2(a) of the Designs Act,1 the definition of an ‘article’ was constructed expansively by the Bombay High Court in Marico Limited (‘Marico’).2 However, the Delhi High Court, in its recently concluded judgment Hero Moto Corp Ltd. v Shree Amba Industries (‘Amba Industries’),3 preferred a narrow interpretation. This paper argues that Amba Industries strikes an optimal balance between the ‘incentivising’ function of IP and the socio-economic objectives of such incentivisation, by restricting the undue extension of design protection in the spare parts market of the automotive industry.

To this end, I make two submissions. Firstly, a spare part’s ‘dependent’ commercial existence and its functional value. Further, such parts cannot enjoy protection under alternate IP regimes because the elements of ‘creativity’ and ‘intellectual effort’ remain absent in the secondary market. Secondly, protecting small-scale, third-party manufacturers from adversarial IP litigation, preventing deadweight costs, and ensuring consumer welfare & social well-being are sound policy considerations, which strongly appeal to the ‘law and economics’ perspective of economic efficiency, and make a strong case for Amba Industries’ liberal position of law.