They didn't steal the docs (not only the docs). They stole the whole public facing architecture as evidenced by the fact that they are using in some instances the exact same API resources names and method names.
Duplicated parameter names would be expected in this case, and preferred actually, so that they conform to the OAuth spec :-) The descriptive text is not an exact copy as well. From what we know, the only damning bit is that parameter values were exactly the same as in smartcar's documentation, which while not condonable, is not as egregious as it would be, had Otonomo cloned the business API as well.
I would like to believe that interoperability trumps copyright in this case - a competitor copying an API/protocol and making a compatible, competing service is good for the consumer.