SC October2011.pdf - Parts & People

Report says most consumers turn
to professionals for auto repairs
Houston—The majority of automobile
owners are do-it-for-me (DIFM)
consumers when it comes to auto service
or repair, according to recent research by
The NPD Group, a market research
company. The auto aftermarket research
report finds that the choice to have DIFM
auto services is largely due to the need to
maintain a car properly in order to keep it
longer, and a higher degree of trust in
professional auto services than do-ityourself
(DIY) auto repair.
The NPD report, “Consumers Shifting
Gears to Do-It-For-Me Outlets,” finds that
68 percent of today’s drivers say they will
have all automotive service and repair
performed by a professional. Twenty-nine
percent of consumers said they will
sometimes have professional auto service
and some they will do themselves, and 8
percent said they rarely have their auto
repair or maintenance done by a
professional.
“With consumers still focused on
spending only on those things they
absolutely need, many are finding
professional automotive service a
necessity in the family budget,” said
David Portalatin, industry analyst for
NPD’s automotive aftermarket unit.
“Reliable personal transportation is
something that most consumers must
have; it’s not a nice-to-have.”
Reliability is the operative word in the
minds of consumers when selecting an
auto repair professional. According to the
NPD report, which explores factors that
drive consumers to switch between DIFM
outlets, 88 percent of DIFM consumers
said trust in the work completed is a very
important influence in selecting an auto
repair outlet. Knowledgeable employees
and the reputation of the outlet or
automotive professional also rank high.
Although trust and reputation rank high
in the selection process, value appears to
be another key driver and the reason for an
increasing number of DIFM consumers
using car dealerships and tire stores for
their auto repairs and maintenance. The
report finds that consumers perceive those
outlets as bringing more coupons and
promotional offers to the table.
“The economy is forcing shifts in
consumer behavior and this is true for the
DIFM consumer,” Portalatin said.
“Knowing who is winning in the market
and how they are doing it will enable
suppliers and installers to collaborate to
craft winning strategies.” n
Court affirms injunction against
Satisfied Brake for trade secrets theft
Ann Arbor, Mich.—The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed a
District Court order, granting a preliminary
injunction against Satisfied Brake Products
and Robert Kahan for misappropriation of
Affinia Group trade secrets. Affinia’s trade
secrets were stolen by a former employee at
Brake Parts Inc., an Affinia company.
In issuing its order, the Appeals Court
confirmed that Affinia’s brake pad
formulations are protected as trade secrets
and that Satisfied obtained those secrets
improperly through the payment to former
Affinia employee David Lewis. The U.S.
Court of Appeals said, “Lewis admitted that
between 2006 and 2008 he accepted
thousands of dollars from Kahan to
transmit BPI brake pad formulations, many
of which BPI had conspicuously marked as
confidential.” The U.S. Court of Appeals
said that while Satisfied Brake claimed to
have not actually used the Affinia
technology purchased from Lewis, an
expert witness “effectively concluded that
in each instance Satisfied had ‘cloned’ the
BPI analogue.”
“One of the greatest benefits we offer our
customers is ongoing research and
development that results in technical
advances within our products,” Terry
McCormack, Affinia president and CEO,
said. “We will take whatever measures are
necessary to assure that our investments in
proprietary technology are protected.
Vigilance in trade secret enforcement is in
the best interest of every ethical company
operating within our global economy.”
Affinia obtained a preliminary injunction
against Satisfied Brake in 2010 in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky. Satisfied Brake appealed the
District Court decision to the U.S. Court of
Appeals which, on Aug. 11, upheld all of
the District Court’s finding in granting the
preliminary injunction.
The Appeals Court directly confirmed a
District Court finding that by using the
stolen Affinia technology, Satisfied Brake
“knowingly and illegally placed itself in the
position to be placed out of business.” The
Appeals Court also confirmed the District
Court finding that “the public has an
interest in the promotion of fair competition
and discouragement of unfair competition.”
To review the full text of the ruling by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit visit www.ca6.uscourts.gov
/opinions.pdf/11a0563n-06.pdf. n
Page 6 October 2011 Parts & People www.partsandpeople.com