[Closed] Chinese "Replica" Frames

Do you plan an exposé Brant? Or are you going to respect your contact's privacy?...

What's there to expose? Just because names are in a contact list doesn't necessarily mean they are actual customers. I've got several famous guitarists in my contact list - have they actually bought one of my amplifiers, unfortunately not, they are just there because I've made contact at some point.

How do we know that's not just a Chinese frame with stickers on it?
Was this thread just an elaborate way to set up the knock off frame you'd already bought as genuine, prior to a classified post?
😈

(Joking, btw....)

that hongfu is the same one in the picture

[img] [/img]

rumour has it they are shite...but hey its the bike industry i can only go on rumours and an email from a guy who said they like the frame but dont survive a CEN test

holy **** i managed to upload a picture

A 330i badge on a 318 Beemer?

That, along with an M3 badge has been done loads. Whats better is a 316 badge on an M3 and the look on the saxo boys faces after they pull up for a race.

rumour has it they are shite

Good at spreading rumours these industry types, aren't they... 😉

Ive heard rumours that they're excellent... I'd rather believe they're not as good as my proper one, but the point I'm making is that there is just as much plagiarism in this frame - that the STW Massive seem to think is OK - as there is in an S5-esque frame with a Cervelo logo printed on the side.

So; what if the 'real' frames are simply liveried up and skilfully marketed versions of the 'off the peg' product the Chinese company supplies to anyone? Are western companies really doing allthat 'R+D', or is all that work actually being done in China, and the end product simply sold on here for a huge mak up? Is the cycle industry really any different to the clothing industry, or the consumer electronics industry? What are we actually paying for; a product or a brand?

Shibboleth; is that a 'real' Eames chair, or a 'fake?

It's real... It's a fake Park workstand though... 😉

Those Hong Fu road frames are $730 ish dollars for the SL version,under 1kg, less for the heavier one.

It's real...

Well, I bit the bullet and a big pallet arrived yesterday. First impressions are that it is indistinguishable from a Vitra/Herman Miller version. Quality and finish is spot on and the proportions are exact.

I don't think it's frothy Ive found it highly amusing at times and am now a lot more aware of differing attitudes to knock off frames.

Shibboleth; is that a 'real' Eames chair, or a 'fake?

Show me the person who would try so hard to justify buying a fake bike frame and would buy an original Eames chair.

Show me the person who would try so hard to justify buying a fake bike frame and would buy an original Eames chair.

It's not a 'licenced' Eames Chair, I was joking... the workstand is real though! 😀

I was joking

Hilarious.

It's not a 'licenced' Eames Chair, I was joking

I'm releived to hear that. The Eames chairs are a perfect example of how companies rip people off; a friend has had both a 'real' chair and a 'fake, and the two were indistinguishable. More than likely made in the same factory. He sold the 'real' one at a sizeable profit, and kept the 'fake'.

I suspect that the same practice happens with bike frames; companies know that we are mugs enough to pay massive premiums for 'brands', so they hike the proces of goods up to whatever they can get away with. All so people can say 'I've got a genuine X product'. And whilst there undoubtedly are cheap inferior knock offs out there, a lot of the 'this product isn't as good as a 'real' version' is more than likely just bullshit spread by those with a vested interest in making as much profit as possible.

The Eames chairs are a perfect example of how companies rip people off; a friend has had both a 'real' chair and a 'fake, and the two were indistinguishable. More than likely made in the same factory. He sold the 'real' one at a sizeable profit, and kept the 'fake'.

They're not made in the same factory. The European licenced version is made by Vitra in Germany and costs about £3600-£4000. The "originals" are made by Herman Miller in the US.

Mine is exact in every way, but made in China for a quarter of the price. I'd sat the base is cast from an original, even the clips that attach the pads to the shells are identical. I'd lusted after one for over 20 years, so I'm quite familiar with it, and I can also confirm that it's indistinguishable apart from lacking the Eames signature sticker on the base.

"Made in China" doesn't mean "poor quality". It often means better quality than something made in Europe.

Well, the chair was apparently identical in every way to the 'original'. Just like yours it seems. Cheaper labour costs aside, how can one identical product justifiably cost many times more?

I have a cheap pair of Aldi or whatever cycling shoes, they cost about £18. The sole pattern is identical to a pair of Specialized ones. The uppers may be an older 'Specialized' design. The specialized version is £60-70. Why?

Have not read every link, but a branded fake frame is a trademark, copyright infringement.

I found a guy faking t shirts from a famous road brand. Trading standards offered to seize all his stock and equipment.

Technically you could have your frame taken away. But I doubt it will happen.

Have not read every link, but a branded fake frame is a trademark, copyright infringement.

A frame that copies patented design cues is also a copyright infringement.
But for some reason, people on here think that's fine...

The reason the unbranded R5 copy from Deng Fu would be unlikely to be confiscated is that very few customs officials would recognise the similarities unless it's festooned with logos.

And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW's double standards: people are happy to buy, use or tolerate fakes, as long as they're faked in a way that makes it unlikely for them to ever be held accountable for committing a crime.

And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW's double standards: people are happy to buy, use or tolerate fakes, as long as they're faked in a way that makes it unlikely for them to ever be held accountable for committing a crime.

A frame that copies patented design cues is also a copyright infringement.

In the case of Spesh FSR maybe- slender stays no. How can you successfully globally copyright a profile/outline that doesn't have a logo on it?

Eh? Are you saying its copyright infringement because a bike frame looks like another?

So what about all the standard steel hardtails? Many alu etc etc that all look similar except for paint and graphics?

Nit-picking but unless it is stickered up its not trademark, copyright infringement. Branded tshirts is. For me, its a similar looking frame.

An unbranded white cotton t-shirt vs one with a Nike logo. One infringes copyright.

Samsung may or may not have infringed on Apple's patents with their smartphones, but they didn't write "Apple" or "iPhone" on them.

I believe Cervelo hold the patent for the Squoval tube profile. The R5-esque Deng Fu looks like they've copied the profile exactly.

If they have - as I suspect - taken a pair of calipers to an original, then they have infinged Cervelo's patent.

Is that OK?

Samsung may or may not have infringed on Apple's patents with their smartphones,

Is that OK?

I believe Cervelo hold the patent for the Squoval tube profile. The R5-esque Deng Fu looks like they've copied the profile exactly.

If they have - as I suspect - taken a pair of calipers to an original, then they have infinged Cervelo's patent.

Actually, patents are usually a lot harder to violate than companies would like you to believe. In order to get patents on this sort of thing you need to come up with some pretty precise "inventions" and generally "we used a square tube" won't cut it. Doesn't stop companies using the patent for marketing or the the patent lawyers from reaping the benefits of putting the patent together and defending it.

And in this case it's Canyon's somewhat questionable patent anyway:

[url= http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11200 ]http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11200[/url]
[url= http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/01/14/canyon-and-cervelo-settle-seat-tube-patent-dispute/ ]http://www.bikerumor.com/2011/01/14/canyon-and-cervelo-settle-seat-tube-patent-dispute/[/url]

Disclaimer : I am not a patent lawyer, though my name is on a patent, and I do own an FM066 frame.

[i]And it seems, that on that basis, this is where we find the dividing line between STW's double standards[/i]

There's no double standards at all. The only reason to buy the fake branded is to give the impression to others that its a real one. You might want to pretend there's another reason, but you'd be kidding yourself

Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

Gary, that lawsuit regarded a tapered seat tube. Squoval is a profile developed by Cervelo, a square with ovalised covered, which is designed to put an equal proportion of the carbon material at any distance from the centre of the tube, thereby offering the greatest resistance to twisting forces.

Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

...But if its a 'structural' copy, that's also a deception... No?

The deception is if you're "passing off" ie pretending something is real, when its not. In what way is the unbranded version claiming to be a real one, when it can't be indentified...?

Gary, that lawsuit regarded a tapered seat tube. Squoval is a profile developed by Cervelo, a square with ovalised covered, which is designed to put an equal proportion of the carbon material at any distance from the centre of the tube, thereby offering the greatest resistance to twisting forces.

You're right re: the different context, didn't read the articles very closely. The point still stands though, there is a good chance there is more to a patent than an external shape, all good grey areas for patent lawyers to clean up on.

And a quick search doesn't show up any Vroomen/White patents that seem to cover that profile, most are related to the time trial frames.

I'm really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine. 😕

It's still IP theft surely?

Strong thread this one, wonder how long it will last? 😀

I'm really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine.

Where has anyone said it's fine?

I suspect people are just refusing to take the bait from the increasingly desperate OP.

Because the unbranded copy isn't trying to be something it's not. I'm certain that a company making cervelo or de rosa frames will sell unbranded version, it's unlikely the same company would sell a fake branded one. ( as to do so would be commercially v stupid). So it's likely therefore that's the branded fake will come from a different source, and you may make the claim that the quality is the same, but you cannot know for certain, and it follows then that the makers of branded fakes won't have the same interest in making the frame properly, it might but you cannot know for certain.

So, for your money you can buy the frame as branded real, some people want that reassurance
Unbranded real, same frame without the brand cache, don't care for the image, short of cash: take your pick
Branded fake: possibly same frame ( don't know for sure) but want others to think it is, slight possibility of being impounded.
Yep, I can see where the smart money would go....

Not paid enough to get apocalyptic, sorry

Where has anyone said it's fine?

Er.... here:

There's no double standards at all. The only reason to buy the fake branded is to give the impression to others that its a real one. You might want to pretend there's another reason, but you'd be kidding yourself
Whereas the unbranded or (for instance) Ribble branded version is same tech at much reduced price. No deception

There's no double standards at all? 😕

People go on and on and on about how the fake harms the brand/kills children's faces off, but an unbranded exact clone, or exact clone sold under another much cheaper brand does no harm? 😕

It's still IP theft surely?

Legally? Only if it breaches one of Cervelos patents, which on a cursary search it doesn't. Put a Cervelo sticker on it though and it becomes a counterfit so could (should) be seized by customs, and you might get a telling off.

I think Cervelo registered the word "Squoval" as a trademark, not the tube profile - you have to be Apple big before you can register a patent on something squareish with round corners.

Where has all this rubbish come from about if you buy a fake branded frame you are just trying to convince other people you have a genunine one?
The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.

I think my Cannondale with a lefty looks great but I am told repeatedly by her indoors that it looks terrible, I don't care what she thinks in this regard though as she doesn't have to ride it; I do and I want to ride a bike that I think looks good and I don't care what other people think.
For the same reason I am conetmplating one of those green and yellow On One frames that most people think look disgusting but [b]I[/b] like them.

I'm really baffled by all the people who got into an apoplectic rage about the branded fake arguing the unbranded copy is absolutely fine.

Where has all this rubbish come from about if you buy a fake branded frame you are just trying to convince other people you have a genunine one?
The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.

Because as well as possessing an astonishingly simplistic black and white world view some people have the power to read minds?

Legally? Only if it breaches one of Cervelos patents, which on a cursary search it doesn't.

Are you a patent lawyer? Sounds unlikely to me - its not just very similar, it looks identical. Never mind whether its morally IP theft of course.

Grum,

you left out an important word there which has completely changed the intended meaning of the post that you refer to. "copy". There is unbranded and there is also unbranded copy. You must make a differentiation between these two.

[i]The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.[/i]

Logically then so would the real one, but without all the worry about frame quality and whether it'll be impounded on the way to your house, oh and support and warranty....and a warm glow of envy from your fellow crit riders....

Makes perfect sense.

Grum,
you left out an important word there which has completely changed the intended meaning of the post that you refer to. "copy". There is unbranded and there is also unbranded copy. You must make a differentiation between these two.

Eh?

Why so aggressive and rude Chief when we don't even know each other? I posted cos I was interested in the discussion, and don't ever intend to upset people with what I've posted.

I skim read the first 100+ posts, so if I've reiterated ground already covered, then apologies. And if I haven't worded my post in such a way that makes it totally impossible to misunderstand then apologies too. I do understand the difference between fake and unbranded, but I have seen unbranded stickered up to look like the genuine thing.

I too am interested in the OP's final decision 🙂

To diffuse the situation, here's a somewhat blurry pic of my FM066 when it was still slightly work in progress:

[img] [/img]

And here is one that someone has stuck Cervelo decals on:-

[img] [/img]

The OP clearly states that the reason for getting fake branded frame would be because it looks fantastic.

Logically then so would the real one, but without all the worry about frame quality and whether it'll be impounded on the way to your house, oh and support and warranty....and a warm glow of envy from your fellow crit riders....

Makes perfect sense.

Sport the Cervelo sales rep who hasn't met his targets and his manager isn't happy.

Aren't straw men fun.

Has that "Cervélo" got a tablet mounted on the stem?

Spot the bored dentist practice manager that's had to deal with fake Chinese copies of things that affect more than people's perception of their status in the crit pack....

They don't just pass off shit copies of bikes, you know?

Don't know, there's a Youtube video of it too and a bit of commentary, which might show more detail.

how can one identical product justifiably cost many times more?

Because one company invested in research, design, manufacture and marketing whereas the other company just manufactured. They didn't need to do the research as they stole an existing design and piggy backed on that products marketing to sell their own product. The end result 'may' be the same but the process that the two companies took to arrive at that product is very different.

Mr mtbtomo, appologies for calling you a fool. But is wasn't meant in an aggressive way. If I had meant to be aggressive i would have used much stronger and ruder words. 🙄

how can one identical product justifiably cost many times more?

Well you don't really know its identical. Not much chance of knowing either unless you xray or cut it up.

Plus there's a cachet that comes with price etc. I read that in Italy, the fakes break down into two types; cheap knockoffs and "real" fakes. The latter come from where the fashion house gets several sets of factories/sweatshops to use their materials to create the product they want to sell. The one who delivers first and to the right quality gets the money, the rest are left with the "real" item but no buyer. These end up in the market and are largely tolerated by the fashion house as they are to the same quality and therefore don't damage the brand. They invariably end up in shops sold for the same price as the authorised thing and punters are none the wiser.

No relevance to the bike conversation of course.

Because one company invested in research, design, manufacture and marketing whereas the other company just manufactured. They didn't need to do the research as they stole an existing design and piggy backed on that products marketing to sell their own product. The end result 'may' be the same but the process that the two companies took to arrive at that product is very different.

What if the R+D is in fact done by the parent company, who own the factory, and the name on the frame is simply a brand? China makes products for many markets, and identical products are sold in different countries under different brands. I'm sure those paying for the 'premium' brand would love to think they are getting an exclusive product, but are they? I'd suspect there are manycases where they are not, and merely buying into hype and marketing bullshit. I certanly think somepeople here are fooled into thinking that China isn't capabel of high-tech engineering and manufacturing without outside assistance. Which is ironic,considering just about every computer we're using to post on here will have had many of it's components designed, tested and made in China.

So, ism't it possible that the same product you'd pay £X for here, is available in other global markets under different brands, with different paint jobs/component specs etc? Possibly for a lot lower prices?

Well you don't really know its identical. Not much chance of knowing either unless you xray or cut it up.

What if it is actually identical? What justifies the price difference?

and punters are none the wiser.

Exactly.

You're making a lot of unjustifiable suppositions IMO quartz.

Well you don't really know its identical. Not much chance of knowing either unless you xray or cut it up.

Deng Fu kindly do this on their website - their are photos of cross-secion cut frames.

Because one company invested in research, design, manufacture and marketing whereas the other company just manufactured. They didn't need to do the research as they stole an existing design and piggy backed on that products marketing to sell their own product. The end result 'may' be the same but the process that the two companies took to arrive at that product is very different.

I'm not sure whether Muppetwrangler is arguing for or against, but surely this is even more pertinent when applied to the actual design of an item rather than just it's paint job.

For the record, I'm thinking about the Ribble/De Rosa direct from XPA (or from Ribble if they offer a decent deal on frame only as they're 3 miles down the road) or possibly the Deng Fu aero frameset.

The reason for the decision is based mainly on the post-sales accountability, and for the record, this opinion is no different to when I started the thread. XPA and Deng Fu seem to offer the best customer service and stand by their products.

And NickC, no, it would only make sense to someone with low-double-figure IQ. As I've said many, many times, I don't want to ride a £3 grand frame in a crit race!!

I don't think I am. The iMac I'm typing this on is made mostly in China, yet marketed as an 'American' product. The components that it comprises are mainly designed, tested and manufactured in China, not the USA. And my own experience has shown that virtually identical (and n some cases actually identical) products are sold in different markets under different brands, at diffrent prices. I don't see how the cycle manufacturing industry is any different to any other that uses China.

The latter come from where the fashion house gets several sets of factories/sweatshops to use their materials to create the product they want to sell. The one who delivers first and to the right quality gets the money, the rest are left with the "real" item but no buyer.

This is typical of the utter bullshine that is spouted by those chavs with wheely cases full of snide gear that go door-to-door in highstreets.

Sadly, they seem to repeat these lies so often that they've actually become "urban fact*". It's nonsense. They're made as a copy, and sold as a copy. Your chav with a suitcase makes up this rubbish to try and convince gullible fools that they're actually buying exactly the same product. They're not. It might be fine, but there is NO WAY it's ever been commissioned by a real designer label in some sort of who-can-make-it-first-competition!!!

By the way, MTBTomo, what's your Deng Fu like to ride? 🙂

i don't believe there is much in the way of R&D that goes into roadies these days, the UCI rules are so rigid there isn't a lot of designing left to do, i'd me more tempted to describe them as stylists rather than engineers.
on the factories note most chinese factories i've seen have made UK factories look like dickensian cotton mills, sweat shops they ain't.

I've seen handbags that are bang on- exact copies. Even so that when we checked in store (£1,000 one) the QC sticker corresponded in the bottom of one of the deepest pockets. This does lead us to think that certain products are manufactured then 'finished' in a different country with the odd detail (country of origin label inside?). How is it policed, really?

My knock off Paul Smith wallet bought 6yrs ago in the same ^ in a back street of Shanghai is real leather, fantastic stitching and has lasted me riding with it/pissed with it in my pocket.

If you can held of these people- their quality is exactly what it is here IMO: http://lisa-fashion.com/

The latter come from where the fashion house gets several sets of factories/sweatshops to use their materials to create the product they want to sell. The one who delivers first and to the right quality gets the money, the rest are left with the "real" item but no buyer.
This is typical of the utter bullshine that is spouted by those chavs with wheely cases full of snide gear that go door-to-door in highstreets.

Sadly, they seem to repeat these lies so often that they've actually become "urban fact*". It's nonsense. They're made as a copy, and sold as a copy. Your chav with a suitcase makes up this rubbish to try and convince gullible fools that they're actually buying exactly the same product. They're not. It might be fine, but there is NO WAY it's ever been commissioned by a real designer label in some sort of who-can-make-it-first-competition!!!

Well, it's all there in the book Gomorrah - which was apparently well-researched enough that the author has had death threats. It might not be true of course but his account is pretty convincing and I'm not aware that it's been seriously questioned.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/roberto-saviano-author-of-gomorrah-the-book-exposing-the-naples-mafia-965482.html

Well you don't really know its identical. Not much chance of knowing either unless you xray or cut it up.

Deng Fu kindly do this on their website - their are photos of cross-secion cut frames.

What I meant was, if two bikes, (one original and one fake) were cut up and x-rayed, ultrasonically inspected and compared by an independent specialist.

Now mr Shibboleth, its sounding to me more and more that you may in fact be working for this company. Are you their gorilla (yes i meant to spell it that way) marketing department or something? its very suspicious the way you react to any negative comment to such bikes. hmmmmmm curious 😕

Grum, I can't see anything in your link referring to what we're talking about. My understanding of these "urban facts" are based on my experience of working in the print industry for nearly 25 years.

I know a few people that reproduce counterfeit labels for everything from 501 jeans to Armani suits. I was asked if I'd produce them on a few occasions (I declined) but I was given some samples. The labels were easy to spot and contained lots of typos. Around the same time, I saw exactly the same fakes (Adidas) being sold in a major sports chain.

I know the owner of the mill that produces these items, they're one of the wealthiest families in the area - the vast majority of their wealth made from counterfeiting, insurance fraud, drugs and money laundering.

What I meant was, if two bikes, (one original and one fake) were cut up and x-rayed, ultrasonically inspected and compared by an independent specialist.

Your style of debating reminds me of listening to my 6-year-old nephew and his friends. 🙄

The iMac I'm typing this on is made mostly in China, yet marketed as an 'American' product. The components that it comprises are mainly designed, tested and manufactured in China, not the USA. And my own experience has shown that virtually identical (and n some cases actually identical) products are sold in different markets under different brands, at diffrent prices.

Just google "Fake iMac"...

[url= http://gizmodo.com/5962851/you-can-buy-a-fake-new-imac-before-apples-has-even-gone-on-sale ]Stuff like this...[/url]

With pleasure:

http://modmyi.com/content/9326-imac-wannabe-pops-up-china.html

[img] [/img]

Link to a knock-off Chinese iMac please?

My Chinese mate has a Chinese Iphone4- it even even has the apps, everything.

You've shot yourself in the foot there. As the article Shib posted states, it [i]looks[/i] like an iMac but very definitely isn't one, and isn't made to the same specs either.

I might order a fake owl.

[img] [/img]

Rachael: Do you like our owl?
Deckard: It's artificial?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.

Wasn't it the case that there were a whole chain of knock off apple stores in China with everything replicated, from staff t-shirts to the store fittings and obviously the products, everything was intricately copied and it was only a tourist who was trying to get a repair done that alerted Apple to the operation.

I just don't agree with the Chinese mentality of copying.

If I had designed something and had it made to then see people copying it and selling it as genuine i'd be frothing and would use Capital letters in my response.

[quote=Shibboleth ]
This is typical of the utter bullshine that is spouted by those chavs with wheely cases full of snide gear that go door-to-door in highstreets.
SNIP!

What grum said. I've also heard from people who have lived in Naples for some time who say this goes on, but what do they know eh? Nobody is saying that the bloke with the crap in a holdall is selling the "real fakes" but I've not seen a single debunking of what Roberto Saviano has said about the rag trade in Naples so unless someone can point me in that direction, I'll stick with Bertie and the people I know as a source of info.

I just don't agree with the Chinese mentality of copying.

Different culture, different period in the economic development of a nation. You'd probably have struggled to fit in in 19th century Britain.

You also have to consider that the words "Apple" or "Cervelo" mean nothing to most people in China, in much the same way that the picture below could be a company logo, someone's signature of sweet and sour king prawn balls with egg fried rice...

[img] [/img]

Different culture, different period in the economic development of a nation. You'd probably have struggled to fit in in 19th century Britain.

Say what you like about the modern practice of "branding" anything that moves, but the origin of branding in retail was an effort by traders in the 19th century to give buyers some reassurance that they were buying unadulterated goods.

Unscrupulous grocers would not have had access to the printing machinery etc. required to counterfeit packaging, so the system worked well and became one of the cornerstones of modern capitalism.

Shibboleth would no doubt prefer to save a few shillings and buy the flour with wood shavings in it though.

This is the country where you can get counterfeit baby milk powder...

[quote=hora ]This is the country where you can get counterfeit baby milk powder...

Counterfeit or tainted/bad? I'm pretty sure it's the latter. I'm also fairly sure when the Chinese discovered this they arrested a load of people and although I can't find out their fate, if, as suggested, their product lead to the deaths from malnutrition of kids, I'm fairly sure they were executed if found guilty.

lol at Shiboleth

if apple means nothing in China why would they set up a whole chain of counterfit stores

The Western brands mean as much to the Chinese as they do to anyone else.

and they want originals as much as we do.
Its not a nation thing to want counterfit goods its just a scally thing, there will alway be people wanting to ponce about with fake goods to enhance their perceived status for a fraction of the cost.
quality, ethics etc dont concern them. same way people buy stolen goods to get the perceived value for a fraction of the cost.

if apple means nothing in China why would they set up a whole chain of counterfit stores

Weren't they selling real Apple products though, just the store was fake?

Genuine Apple products apparently in some they were genuine bought from grey importers but it was unclear according to reports.

But it shows how the chinese love their brands as much as we do.

interesting how the BBC report;
The shops have been told to stop using the logos as Chinese laws prohibit copying the "look and feel" of another company without permission.

Grum, I can't see anything in your link referring to what we're talking about. My understanding of these "urban facts" are based on my experience of working in the print industry for nearly 25 years.

No you'd need to read the book - it's pretty interesting anyway. He goes into quite a bit of detail about it. Sounds bizarre but his account is fairly plausible.

Genuine Apple products apparently in some they were genuine bought from grey importers but it was unclear according to reports.

But it shows how the chinese love their brands as much as we do.