Breaking: How Jiaou Misled Consumers through False Advertising, Undermined Phice…

#BBICN #OSW

Breaking: How Jiaou Misled Consumers through False Advertising, Undermined Phicen, and Brazenly Claimed to be Victim.
By uxffh from BBICN BBS
Link: (CN) https://goo.gl/rcfsZN (EN)https://goo.gl/sDQCti or https://goo.gl/se1EC7
………………………………………………………………………….
Recently, some people with ulterior motives have distorted the facts to slander Phicen and BBICN, falsely accusing them of joint fraud, monopoly, discrimination and other means for price competition. This is to confuse collectors and merchants, create misdirection by means of framing, all while revealing personal data and infringing privacy. The level of audacity is indeed shocking.

As someone with insider information, I feel the need to come forth and clarify the details of this situation.

Beyond any doubt, Jiaou Doll is a bootleg product that infringes copyright.
The facts are as follows:

1. While the Phicen body is well known, the company makes little contact with the outside world and keeps a low profile. The Jiaou body imitates that of Phicen and has plotted to do so since way back.

As early as June 2014, a certain Mr. Ming, from Jiaou (not registered at that point) was in a collaboration to develop 1:6 figures from “JX Online 3” (a swordsman-themed RPG) when this person learned more about the seamless body. Ming bought a variety of seamless body from Phicen and from Taiwan for reference and development purposes.

After experiencing technical bottlenecks, the project became stagnant. They racked their brains to steal the Phicen technology. Unable to locate the company, they had to connect with Phicen through distributor BBICN, in the name of the “product development collaboration”. As it was through introduction of the trusted BBICN, Phicen initially did not suspect possible fraud. However, the moment Ming arrived at the Phicen R&D center, he eagerly studied the Phicen bodies and asked sensitive technical questions. This resulted in a wary Phicen showing their patent certificate to Ming, warning him not to overstep. In subsequent visits, Ming is restricted from the office. This move led to a resentful Ming, who threatened to end Phicen.

Later on, quality problems of “JX Online 3” figures led to a large-scale order cancellation, terminating the project. It was when Ming fell out with his partner that Phicen became aware of the infringement situation.
……………………………………
2. The following pictures shows how Jiaou has copied the making process of Phicen
…………………………………………..
3: Jiaou cheated consumers through false advertising. The picture Jiaou has used for its packaging is not of their seamless figure body but of Phicen’s seamless body. It is the same picture that was previously used to promote “JX Online 3”
…………………………………………..

4: From the patent registry.

Phicen’s patent application was filed on November 24, 2014, with announcement dated February 11, 2015 (Figure 1 below).

Jiaou’s patent application was file on October 14, 2015, with announcement dated October 10, 2016 (see Figure 2). Its application date is 8 months later than Phicen’s announcement date. During this time, Phicen stainless steel skeleton has already been selling in the market.

Phicen sued Jiaou in October 2015, which at that point had not yet applied for patent.

Today, the Patent Re-examination Board may have issued a document stating Phicen’s patent as invalid, but it’s not the final effective document. The State Intellectual Property Office website indicates that Phicen maintains its patented status (Figure 3).

Phicen has file for lawsuit with the Supreme Court, so let’s look forward to the outcome. As we all know, patent not subjected to substantial review may not be sustainable. It is baffling that Jiaou has obtained a patent document, by means of inappropriate copying.

Figure 1: Phicen’s patent application was filed on November 24, 2014.

……………………………………………..
5: In 2015, Ming promoted the infringing figure bodies to BBICN, attempting to entice with “high profitability”. When BBICN refused, Ming even cited the Wong Lo Kat trademark dispute of JDB company as example to persuade BBICN. Ming was again rejected and began holding a grudge.

From the perspective of BBICN, they’ve brought in trouble which mostly affected their supplier Phicen. Forgoing high profits as distributor to protect supplier from illegal infringement – how is this fraud, discrimination or monopoly? As for the market, there are the seamless bodies from Taiwan, domestically there’s the UD seamless body, etc. How is such a market, in which we are free to buy and sell, considered a monopoly?

On the other hand, Ming had the audacity to solicit Phicen’s business partners and smear the products of Phicen, and likewise faced firmed rejection. Meanwhile, Phicen made no mention of Jiaou to merchants. There are many merchants hoping to purchase from Phicen directly. But Phicen has long given the distribution rights to BBICN. It would be a breach of contract and trust if Phicen supplied directly to merchants.

……………………………………..

6: Regarding the price, fluctuation is influenced by the market. A brand has the right to adjust product prices and it’s not to suppress anyone.
Phicen is experiencing a series of malicious infringement, such as the case in which it has to change its trademark, as well as this case of infringing figure bodies. Trust that Phicen will not compromise and will firmly crack down on unfair competition.

Product development is like giving birth to a baby. It’s sickening to even consider stealing someone else’s baby just because one is unable to conceive. It’s fundamental to be sensible and have self-respect. To infringers, do take care of yourself and not push this too far.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Opinions expressed in this post are my own and do not represent that of Phicen and BBICN.

By uxffh from BBICN BBS
Link: (CN) https://goo.gl/rcfsZN (EN)https://goo.gl/sDQCti or https://goo.gl/se1EC7

osw.zone Breaking: How Jiaou Misled Consumers through False Advertising, Undermined Phice...

SHARE