G-Code

Revision Aids In Counterfeit Sting Operations At Two Tradeshows, Resulting In Multiple Arrests

Essex Junction, Vermont (February 2, 2017) – Since the Revision-aided sting operation at last year’s SIA Snow Show in Denver, Colorado, Revision has elevated company efforts to eradicate counterfeit Revision products from the market. Revision is a world leader in integrated, purpose-built soldier solutions; all of the Company’s protective eyewear has consistently and unequivocally exceeded global military-grade testing requirements and has been proven in action around the world. Accordingly, Revision views counterfeit products as a direct threat to the integrity of the Company and, more importantly, to Revision customers, who depend on the high standards and protection of authentic Revision gear. Revision maintains all intellectual property rights on all Revision products—rights that are total and international.

“Revision will take aggressive, unflinching action to eliminate any and all counterfeit operations,” said Jonathan Blanshay, CEO of Revision. “It should be perfectly clear that Revision will not tolerate any counterfeit products that essentially duplicate Revision’s designs but not quality on the market—period. We created these products and it is simply unacceptable to have low-level con artists steal our property and profit from it, especially at the expense of our end-users—the soldiers and police who protect us each and every day.

“Revision will take any and all actions within our power to put a forceful and immediate stop to illegal counterfeit businesses and illicit knockoff products, using every legal means at our disposal to prosecute offenders with extreme prejudice. Revision has invested tens of millions of dollars in designing, manufacturing, testing and certifying our industry leading products, and we will not tolerate the outright theft of our intellectual property. Revision’s mission is to provide the very best protection to soldiers and we will stamp out anyone who attempts to undermine that promise to global warfighters. Revision will relentlessly pursue offenders and will not stop until all involved are brought to justice and put behind bars.”

This week, Revision again aided law enforcement in two successful sting operations against alleged counterfeit eyewear distributors. This is the second consecutive year that Revision has aided in a significant sting operation. This year, Revision, working in conjunction with the Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor’s Office in Indiana, aided in the execution of sting operations at two separate trade show events—on January 18th at SHOT Show in Las Vegas, Nevada and January 26th at the SnowSports Industries America (SIA) Snow Show in Denver, Colorado—resulting in multiple arrests.

Warrants were issued for owners of two companies: Airsoft Wholesaler, Inc. (a California-based company trading as “Lancer Tactical”) and Guangzhou Yijia Optical Technique Co. Ltd. (a company based in Guangzhou, China trading as “PTide”). Both companies are accused of selling unauthorized counterfeit versions of Revision Military’s Desert Locust® goggles, and “Lancer Tactical” is also accused of selling imitation versions of Revision Military’s Bullet Ant® goggles. Revision has tested samples of products distributed by these companies and has verified that the counterfeit goggles from both manufacturers fail ANSI testing, EN166 anti-fog testing, MIL-PRF-32432 abrasion testing, and have V50 ballistic values well below Revision product standards.

Changqing Chen (aka Chang Chen), co-owner of “Lancer Tactical” was arrested on the tradeshow floor at SHOT Show in Las Vegas; the other co-owner, Changying Chen (aka Lily Chen), is still at large. The representatives of “PTide”—owner Chen Jiajun (aka Jiajun Chen) and sales manager Zhang Ping (aka Ping Zhang)—were both arrested on the SIA tradeshow floor in Denver. All four individuals face six felony charges: corrupt business influence, conspiracy to commit corrupt business influence, theft, conspiracy to commit theft, counterfeiting, and conspiracy to commit counterfeiting.

Last April, Revision’s Senior Director of Legal and Governmental Affairs, Greg Maguire, testified before a Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the impact of foreign counterfeiters, making numerous appeals and proposing concrete steps to representatives to curtail widespread illegal counterfeit operations. Additionally, Revision employs a full-time member of the Legal department staff dedicated to researching and tracking counterfeit manufacturers, distributers, and exhibitors.

Revision strongly recommends only purchasing from approved distributors and retailers. Visit Revision’s website for a full list of Revision vendors. To ensure customer safety, if there is any doubt about the authenticity of a product that is marked with Revision’s logo, or resembles a Revision product, please contact Revision directly to verify. For additional information, please contact Greg Maguire, gmaguire@revisionmilitary.com, or, Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor, Lynn Deddens, ldeddens@dearbornohioprosecutor.com. The fact that the defendants have been charged with crimes are merely allegations and the defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Tags:

29 Responses to “Revision Aids In Counterfeit Sting Operations At Two Tradeshows, Resulting In Multiple Arrests”

  1. Strike-Hold says:

    Good for them!

    Its disgraceful that the SHOT Show even lets company’s like this get space on the floor, when here are other, decent companies still waiting to get in…

    • Poop Nukem says:

      Shot show has become so huge that I’m sure the amount of companies that apply for entry exceed their capacity for vetting. Though you would think any company from China would bear closer inspection. On my Facebook feed alone I have three companies offering the same Chinese made TAD Gear knockoffs.

  2. RA says:

    Glad they are cracking down on this type of thing. Sucks for the people who have put in the hard work to bring a legitimate product to market and have some scum bag steal from them. Sorry to say that this is not going to make a dent in this type of theft but you have to start somewhere.

    • some other joe says:

      This has nothing to do with protecting Revision and everything to do with protecting my eyes. If I buy a Revision (or any branded) product, I can expect a certain standard of performance. If anyone can use that branding, I don’t know what I’m buying. And as Revision’s reported testing shows, these counterfeit products do not meet the same spec’s as Revision’s products and do not offer my Mk. 1 eyeballs the same level of protection. So, these guys for trying to sell “me” substandard armor.

      Trademarks ensure I know what I’m buying and can make informed decisions, they are not for the trademark holders protection. That’s why trademarks never expire while patents and copyrights do.

  3. Chris says:

    Copyright and Intellectual Property issues aside, selling bootleg or knock-off PPE-related gear as legit PPE should always be a felony. Same goes for armor plates and helmets. F*** these a**holes, and anyone like them.

    • BAP45 says:

      That’s what I was thinking. I can just picture some poor schmuch thinking they got a good deal only to end up loosing an eye or worse.

      • Tu says:

        Here’s the thing though, I totally get the IP protection issues, but i think that saying that people buy these knock-offs as “mistaken” purchases is wrong. On the airsoft side of the house, from what i’ve seen, companies like this are clearly branded and have not claimed to be “Revision”. I would say that as a result, revision and their knock-off competitors are targeting completely different markets.
        Some names of overseas airsoft good producers include (Lancer tactical, Emerson, Elite Force, Bravo)

        • Joe_momma says:

          Wasn’t there a large agency that bought a large order of CAT tourniquets a few years ago from a reputable dealer, only to later find that that dealers distributor had bought a lot of knockoff TQ’s?

        • Jester says:

          That guy getting cuffed in the picture is the owner of Lancer tactical. So apparently he wasn’t branding his stuff as airsoft-only stuff. Either that or SHOT show allows airsoft manufacturers to exhibit?

          • Joe_momma says:

            The allow airsoft and obvious knock off companies in. The amount of Asian based knock off companies with booths is staggering

  4. Lasse says:

    Good stuff Revision!

    Now, if we could do the same with the nylon side of things, then maybe people would start to respect IPs, including designs.

    • Lawrence says:

      Indeed!

      There was some Douchebag company (also from the far east) with a booth that was promoting backpacks that were a total copy of Direct Action’s ‘Dragon Egg’, and made from fabric featuring a copy of PenCott-GreenZone camo….

      • Scott says:

        Airsoft does not belong at shot.
        It’s basically an entire industry of copies and pretenders.

        • Javier says:

          That’s a bit of misconception. There is a lot of licensed products where real manufacturers partner with airsoft companies and the player community is filled with lots of veterans that have been there and done that.
          There are a lot of knock offs in general but airsoft is hardly the problem because airsoft companies don’t market for real life scenario use. Plenty of dirtbags do that that don’t even know airsoft.

      • Lasse says:

        What bothers me the most is actually a lot of these (mainly Eastern) European companies, that are capable of producing quality in the sense that it’s correctly built to spec with proper materials, but utilize their capability to produce JPC copies and whatnot instead of trying to coming up with their own IPs.

        The far east companies are usually all pure shit- no discussion.

        • some other joe says:

          Patents and copyright expire. If a company is selling a knock-off or copy of someone else’s stuff and putting their own name on it, I have less of an issue. Sure, it’s copycatting and sleazy, but they are putting their own name on it. That said, how many ways do you make a double mag, PALS compatible, full flap pouch or a super-light plate carrier anyway?

          But when you say your product is a Crye or Blackhawk! or Tactical Tailor, et al. product, that’s an entirely different story. Now you’re trading on the name and promise of quality. Now we have a problem.

          • Lasse says:

            I’m not talking about patents, or basic products. When you see companies crank out 1:1 copies of JPCs, MRC IFAK or the FS Ranger IFAK thong thingy, then there is obviously theft going on. You are stealing someones IP, regardless of it being patented or not.

            If I make a product, and do not patent it, doesn’t mean that I am sharing my invention/design with you for your own commercial gain. Legally you might be able to, since I most likely won’t have a world wide waterproof patent, but it’s fucking immoral and disgusting- and this is what I am trying to say. People give companies a good rep for things they have obviously not created, just manufactured, without permission from the creator.

            • some other joe says:

              You’re not going to get an argument from me. I’m saying that JimBob* making a JimBobCo JPC is significantly different that JimBob making a JPC and labeling it with Crye’s branding. In the first case, I can tell JimBob is leeching off Crye’s work and make buying choices appropriately. In the second, JimBob’s being intentionally deceptive and I don’t know that I’m buying a knock-off, and potentially substandard, piece of kit.

              *With most sincere apologies to all reputable JimBobs.

  5. Bradkaf308 says:

    Again? Of course! Didn’t Revision nail some more last year? Good for them! I agree with the idea of charging them more severely as it’s passed off as PPE.

  6. Jeff S says:

    I’m still trying to figure out why some random prosecutor in rural Indiana is doing this… Where the hell is ICE/HSI and CBP??

    • JKifer says:

      Brother, let me tell ya something… first off HSI is the “new” ICE. there are still ICE dudes but they do mostly immigration/deportation in conjunct with ERO dudes.. CBP is just the branch that they fall under.. CBPO’s don’t deal with this shit at all.. HSI is so severely limited and ordered down in what they can do, just like the BP..they have the legal auth and power but are “handcuffed” by policy and regulation… idk.. just my two cents.. maybe an HSI/ICE guy will chime in with better info than I…

      on a side note..

      just got a pair of the sawfly’s with the photochromatic lens..cant wait to try them out doing cqb drills..

    • Joe_momma says:

      Within HSI, you have groups. These groups focus on certain aspects of the HSI mission, be it aliens, dope, money, documents, counter proliferation, gangs, etc etc etc include IP. You will generally only find IP in larger metro areas, and they are more focused on IP that affects homeland security, and not going after the local gas station cranking out Jordan t shirts. Now if that guy cranking out Gucci handbags is using that money to fund other stuff or provide support to some prophet minded bad guys, then HSI will want to get involved. But the man power for IP is quite small so they narrow down what they go after so it fits in the HSI bubble and mission. Don’t forget though, your state has IP laws and your state and locals can go after them as well. But chances are, they have even less people dedicated to that. Don’t forget every time you say “don’t you have murderers to be chasing”…. there are plenty of civil actions that can be taken as well.
      But here’s the big thing, both criminal and civil actions require the victim company to take a large role in the process and while revision is obviously doing so, this is quite the exception to the rule. Getting surefire or aimpoint or whoever to dedicate time and effort into doing what needs to be done to move a case like this forward, it’s quite difficult and when they do there time and cost analysis, it’s not worth it to them.

  7. Jeff S says:

    HSI is an office under ICE, like ERO (as you pointed out). They do plenty of this type of stuff.

    CBP is a different agency from ICE (which is stupid, thanks GW and Tom Ridge). Are you sure they don’t deal with this? Obviously they’re not doing interior enforcement but I’d be willing to be they’re interested in this stuff coming into the country. I’d also be willing to be there are joint units with HSI that deal with targeting IPR violations.

    Just sayin’… 😉

    Again, why is a rural prosecutor from Indiana the lead?

  8. babola says:

    Anyone else cracked themselves up reading those four names mentioned?

    It’s like a friggin’ circus…

  9. SN says:

    Glad Revision is so aggressive.
    Exhibitors at SHOT need to be more aggressive with the no-photo rule. I always ask (even when I had a media badge, only told no once) and only saw one vendor tell a Chinese Rep no photos (VLTOR).

    • Joe_momma says:

      Cell phones really put a dent in that SHOT policy. Back in the day if you didn’t have a media pass you got the boot quite swiftly. But with the advent of camera phones, the whole media only thing kinda just faded away…

  10. Ranger Rick says:

    This type of enforcement is long overdue. I’ve been going to SHOT for off and on 20 years or so, during that time I’ve seen the growthindifferencetors from the east” and the subsequent growth in knock off products. The SHOT Show “Press Pass” was the ticket for espionage, it has gotten so bad that many companies keep their goods literally “under wraps” at the show.

    A few years ago I spoke with the folks at EOTECH regarding the proliferation of knock offs at gun shows and online, their reaction was indifference; I guess the bigger you are the less you care.

    It was interesting to see representatives of the FBI and HSI manning a table regarding counterintelligence at trade snd industry events, this was the first time that I can recall this ever happening.

  11. WBK says:

    the Chinese have never invented anything, but they can dang sure make a decent “looking” copy. seen a guy at the range with a acog that he said he bought from a solider coming home for 300. I showed him mine that was “broken” from uncle sammies store room. it was a fake when looked at side by side. but someone with no experience I can see were it would look like a real one.