Primary Arms

Revision Counterfeit Eyepro Sting


Denver, Colorado (February 1, 2016) – Revision Military, a world leader in integrated, purpose-built soldier solutions, aided a sting operation to arrest owners and representatives of a Chinese company illegally manufacturing and selling counterfeit eyewear. Revision worked in conjunction with the Dearborn and Ohio County Prosecutor’s Office in Indiana to execute this action. The operation was carried out on January 28th at the SnowSports Industries America (SIA) Snow Show in Denver, Colorado. Guangzhou Botai Optical Visor Co., Ltd. (“Guangzhou Botai”) U.S. representative and part owner, Gong Peiwen, also known as Daniel Gong, was arrested on the showroom floor. Arrest warrants have also been issued for brothers Jiang Xingde and Jiang Xinglin, co-owners of Guangzhou Botai, and Ding Xiaoxia, also known as Crystal Ding, Sales Associate for Guangzhou Botai, which is based in Guangzhou, China. The four are facing six felony charges: counterfeiting, theft, corrupt business practices, conspiracy to commit counterfeiting, conspiracy to commit theft, and conspiracy to commit corrupt business practices. These charges are being brought in Indiana.

Guangzhou Botai has been producing unauthorized counterfeit versions of Revision Military’s Desert Locust™ goggle. Additionally, these fake products have been distributed under the pretense of providing military-grade ballistic protection which presents a hazard to the safety of users expecting the high level eye protection of authentic Revision products. After extensive investigation of the company and testing of the counterfeit products it produces, conclusions showed none of the established industry standards for optical or ballistic quality were met by these unauthorized product knockoffs.  

“We were alarmed to learn of these counterfeit products,” said Jonathan Blanshay, CEO of Revision Military, “our customers expect only the best quality and performance from our products. We take pride in exceeding the highest specifications for optics and ballistic impact protection and have invested huge amounts of money to create the best possible protective products. We have built our name and reputation on exceeding standards and will not tolerate inferior, non-authorized knockoff products in the marketplace.”

Mr. Blanshay reiterated that, when it comes to customers being victimized by inferior forgeries, Revision has a zero tolerance approach, stating, “the Revision brand signifies integrity and elite performance. Fraudulent products undermine our core mission to protect the troops who protect all of us. We are taking this matter very seriously and will do everything in our power to ensure that any individuals or corporate entities involved in an illicit enterprise that threatens Revision’s customers and the Revision reputation are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Our mission is to provide the very best protection to soldiers and we will fight to prevent any undermining of that promise to global warfighters.”

Revision Military maintains all intellectual property rights on all Revision products – rights that are total and international. This includes the distinctive Desert Locust goggle, Revision’s flagship goggle line first launched in 2006 that has proven immensely popular and highly regarded for its superior ballistic protection, craft, and comfort. Revision’s products are designed, manufactured, and tested in-house at state-of-the-art, certified facilities. All of Revision’s protective eyewear has consistently and unequivocally exceeded global military-grade testing requirements and has been proven in action around the world.


19 Responses to “Revision Counterfeit Eyepro Sting”

  1. Gary says:

    Nice one.

    Polish Helikon-Tex may think twice next time they try showing off their apparel in fake Multicam nicknamed Camogrom, in mil-tac and outdoor shows on American soil in the future.

    • SSD says:

      So where did this happen?

    • ToinouAngel says:

      Helikon holds IP rights in Europe for its “Camogrom” pattern, I doubt they are at risk of facing a suit a from Crye or the U.S. government anytime soon (plus I’m pretty sure that if Crye or the U.S. government actually cared or thought they had a case, they’d have sued a long time ago).

      • babola says:

        Just what IP rights do you speak of? Intellectual Property rights to replicated genuine Multicam pattern? Only IP they can claim on that print is a small ‘camogrom’ inscription printed randomly on the pattern…and that’s hardly something you would call an IP.

        As for suing them, I agree…it’s been a while, close to 10 years since Helikon first copied Multicam and called it Camogrom…Cry and US gov’t didn’t care much back then, they probably don’t care much these days either.

        • Gary says:

          They don’t need to sell it as ‘Multicam’. It’s the pattern they ripped-off, what ever you end up calling it in the end.

      • Lasse says:

        They also don’t sell it as Multicam.. Which is kind of a requirement if you want to nail them for counterfitting.

        Anyway, good job. Keep taking out small fish from the sea until you’ve cleaned out every single fish regardless of size.

        • Gary says:

          They don’t need to sell it as ‘Multicam’. It’s the pattern they ripped-off, what ever you end up calling it in the end.

          • Lasse says:

            I’m not real familiar with camogrom, but being able to copy something and still be in the clear when it comes to design is pretty fucking easy. The general idea is that you have to change it 10%, which on a camo pattern is nothing..

            • Grant says:

              And that’s where lies the rub – they haven’t changed the pattern. What they did is changed the small print from multicam to camogrom, which is a lot less than 10%.
              It’s a rip-off, admittedly over 10 years old now, whether you want to admit it or not.

              • ToinouAngel says:

                Have you ever owned stuff in Camogrom? It’s different from MultiCam, and not just because it says “camogrom” instead of “multicam” on the fabric.

                Camogrom is actually much closer (might even be exactly the same thing) to Suez, the original Polish MultiCam copy once issued to Polish SOF, than it is to MultiCam.

                Camogrom and Suez lack one shade of color from the actual MultiCam, which obviously is for copyright reasons.

                Here. On the left is MultiCam (from Polish company MIWO Military Lubliniec, actual manufacturer under contract with the Polish Special Operations Command), while the other two on the right are Camogrom from Helikon:

                So, yeah, you’re wrong.

      • DAN III says:

        Why worry about Helikon ? DoD and the US Army ripped off Crye with their refusal to adopt the Crye pattern. Instead Army made some barely noticeable color changes and called it OCP, Operational Camo Pattern. Thus avoiding 10s of millions in licensing/trademark fees to Crye Precision.

        The US fedgov are bigger thieves than the Chinese Reds.

        • D.B. says:

          Well not quite. US Army still pays a fee to Crye for the new OCP (Scorpion W2). Not as big as initially disagreed upon, but it’s still a fee.

  2. Invictus says:

    Man, justice-boner is raging today!

    • Mario says:

      Sure is, and for the good reason. Time to put a stop to counterfeiting practices of late.

  3. jbgleason says:

    Crystal Ding. Great porn name.

    Maybe they can go after the people making fake CAT tourniquets now.

  4. AGL Bob says:

    They’ll probably get a small fine, be deported and then be back again next year ripping off someone else.

    • ejb3 says:

      As someone who works in the customs law enforcement realm, I will tell you this statement is spot on, unfortunately.

      • Jeff S says:

        It’s funny that ICE/HSI wasn’t even involved.

        Does anyone know what interest a sheriff’s department in Indiana has in this?