The “Golden Nose Plagiarism Award” was created in 1977 by German designer Rideau Büser after he discovered that his designs were being copied. The trophy is a black dwarf with a golden nose to expose the most daring copycat companies with a sense of smell.
In 19 years, China was the winner of the
Germany’s “Golden Nose Plagiarism Award” in the top ten list
and made a name for itself in design circles
20 years again won 6 items
After the announcement of this year’s winning products
Old workers found that China only accounted for two of them
I have to say, this is also a great progress …
Next, follow the old workers to take a look at this year
The top 10 winners of the Plagiarius Award!
First Prize
The “STIHL MS250” chain saw won the first place in this year’s “Golden Nose”. The manufacturer Guley from Hangzhou, China, copied this product exactly and infringed the German STIHL brand word mark (STIHL) and color mark (orange/light gray). The color trademark (orange/light gray).
(top) Original by ANDREAS STIHL AG & Co. KG, Wieblingen, Germany (bottom) Replica by Hangzhou, China
This Guley is also one of the TOP 3 counterfeiters of the STIHL brand, with major buyers in Southeast Asia, Africa and South America. (Because there are so many imitations, STIHL brand even made a special note on its official website)
Facing the counterfeiting behavior, STIHL chooses to use the weapon of law to defend its rights and interests, so far, it has won 8 legal actions against Guley, and got a total of 170,000 Euros compensation.
Usually, counterfeit chainsaws do not meet any legal requirements or safety parameters (exhaust value, chain braking time, material strength, etc.) and will be extremely vulnerable to user injury, and the sustainability, practicality and safety of the product are not well protected.
Second prize
The second place winner of this year’s competition is still a Chinese imitation of the electric brake bleeder “ERS5”.
This cheap imitation does not meet the basic requirements for electrical and pressure equipment, and is dangerous and polluting, and not suitable for brake fluid pressure regulators. The labeling of the product is also wrong: the English translation of Amp is ” Aump ” instead of ” Amp “.
(Left) Original German MANOTEC (right) manufacturing: Chinese imitators
The imitator only modified the control buttons of the product and registered the design protection, making it impossible for MANOTEC to protect its legal rights.
Third Prize
The “Up-Lift” sofa bed was the third prize in this year’s competition.
Prostoria’s “Up-Lift” product line is actually registered for design protection in many countries. However, Oxygen Corp from London, UK, has copied its design, function and product name 1:1, which is very confusing.
Left Original: Prostoria d.o.o., Sv Croatia Right Theft: Oxygen Corp.
The imitators, on the other hand, say: “Our products are made to the same standards as the originals, but we sell them at a 90% discount …… We make high quality replicas. Great designs that everyone can use”… (It’s a bummer to take theft so much for granted)
And in reality, replicas are very cheap in terms of materials and workmanship. They hurt not only the manufacturer, but also the consumer.
Award of Excellence
In no particular order
01
Hybrid hooded cardigan” e.s.motion, functional jacket design. The imitators have made detailed adjustments to its color and the detail part of the logo, but it is still obvious that the copying was carried out, while the two are even more different in quality.
Left original: Germany engelbert strauss right theft: Germany ALDISüDDienstleistungs
The original designer enjoys (unregistered) design protection within the EU, but the imitator still ALDISüD believes that he did not carry out design copying and is currently trying to communicate with the original.
02
For the “Formfix” cookie machine, the Turkish supplier Handymach copied the design, construction, function, recipe (to the nearest gram), roller pattern and even the video part of NFF Janssen in its entirety. While the original designer was making a claim for rights, the copying party refused to respond.
Left original: Niederrheinische Formenfabrik Janssen, Germany Right theft: Handymach, Turkey
03
The “Polygon” armchair, this time the copied party is still the same – Prostoria.
The copycat was forced to stop work after a warning from the original, and was also banned from selling it, due to the use of cheap materials, poor workmanship and lack of comfort.
Left original: Prostoria d.o.o., Sv. Croatia Right stolen: M-Edition London, UK
04
Folding draining rack ” SPACE WONDER “, still a 1:1 imitation, imitation plastic cheaper, creases also easy to break, the quality is not up to standard.
Left original: Rotho Kunststoff AG, Switzerland Right theft: TUFFEX, Turkey
After the defense, the copycat TUFFEX can still be found on its website although the copycat party has claimed to stop selling it.
05
The step drill “ULTIMATECUT RUKO”, as can be seen from the picture, is still a 1:1 copy. The original RUKO has now applied for a patent for the step drill ULTIMATE-CUT, but the licensing process is still in progress.
Left original: Germany RUKO GmbH precision tools Right steal: Germany Karnasch Professional Tools
06
Christmas tree stand Easyfix Classic, an exact copy of the design, but in terms of material, the imitators did not use the recyclable plastic of the original product.
Left original: Tannen-Paradies, Germany Right stolen: Gerrit Brinkman Bloemen- en Plantenhandel V.O.F., Netherlands
07
The door stop series, the 3 originals and the 3 copies do not differ in any way from the outside. The visible screws on the copy and the minimal differences on the lower side of the door stop do not help. The copycat Walteco did not sign the original author’s cease and desist statement and the original author is currently in litigation.
Left original: Wagner System, Germany Right theft: WALTECO s.r.o., UherskéHradiště, Czech Republic
Nowadays, in the face of plagiarism and imitation
More and more companies and brands
have been trying to take up the weapon of law
to protect their legal rights
I believe that in the future, more and more people will be aware of it and change it.
Recent Comments