News Center

Counterfeit and substandard goods are universally condemned, and fake knives are no exception. Yet efforts to crack down on counterfeiting never seem to end. So who exactly is manufacturing these fakes? And who keeps taking the risk of peddling them? More importantly, when it comes to their own production, why would anyone willingly buy counterfeit products?

　　Through inquiries from various sources, the reporter learned that counterfeit cutting tools fall into two main categories: one is crudely manufactured, and the other involves imitation carried out with a certain level of technical expertise. Moreover, in conversations with personnel from relevant companies, distributors, end-users, and even the counterfeiters themselves, the reporter gradually gained insight into the production processes behind these two types of counterfeiting.

　　Standard products from certain domestic brands—such as common drill bits, taps, and carbide inserts—pose relatively low technical challenges and thus often become targets for counterfeiters. In regions like Jiangsu and Zhejiang, as well as in Hebei, many small enterprises and even family-run workshops adopt this approach: they minimize costs by using inferior materials—for example, low‑alloy high-speed steel in drill‑bit production—or by refurbishing used cutting tools, thereby reaping hefty profits. Some even affix the trademarks of well‑known brands to boost sales; for instance, a tool factory in Jinyun County, Zhejiang, was once found to be mass‑producing counterfeit cutting tools bearing a prominent domestic brand name, along with thousands of labels printed with the counterfeit company’s name and address.

　　The technical and quality standards of this type of counterfeiters are generally quite low, yet they produce and affix labels in the same location, allowing for substantial profit margins. Consequently, despite their illegal activities, they persist. However, because they affix other companies’ labels and trademarks to their own products, once discovered, law enforcement can easily dismantle their operations in one fell swoop. As a result, in recent years, this practice has increasingly evolved into mass production of unbranded knives, which are then resold by distributors who freely apply their own labels. In this way, counterfeiters sidestep risks and, in a sense, can no longer be classified as “counterfeiters,” since at this stage—beyond the possibility of substandard products—there is no genuine “counterfeiting” involved. Meanwhile, the labeling stage, being the most risky and prone to leaving clear evidence, has largely gone underground in recent years, with operators renting residential properties or dispersing their activities, often conducting work under cover of night.

　　For this category of counterfeiters, their willingness to take enormous risks in violation of laws and regulations stems from the lure of profit: low costs, high margins, and broad market access—each factor represents a significant incentive and can inject substantial capital into their enterprises. However, they must also bear the corresponding risks, moral condemnation, and relevant legal penalties.

　　Buyers of this type of counterfeit cutting tools are predominantly small and medium-sized machining enterprises. They do not have particularly high demands for tool performance but seek to keep tool costs under control, and even when using low‑quality tools, production is seldom significantly affected. These are the companies that often view cutting tools as mere consumables—believing that they will inevitably wear out and be replaced anyway, with little regard for tool life or performance. To them, the only criterion is affordability.

　　Meanwhile, another type of counterfeiting involves imitation carried out by entities with a certain level of technical expertise—typically medium-sized enterprises that possess both scale and skilled personnel. However, lacking strong brand appeal and adequate R&D capabilities, these companies rely primarily on replicating high‑demand products from larger brands, including even discontinued or hard‑to‑obtain items. For instance, following Mitsubishi’s recent decision to discontinue its R5 and R6 blades and adjust its market strategy, a flood of counterfeit versions quickly emerged. Reportedly, many counterfeit products bearing Japanese brand names are even being smuggled into the Chinese mainland from Taiwan.

　　Technological imitation is an important strategy for many enterprises in their efforts to upgrade technology; even some of the larger domestic firms resort to it. However, when such imitation extends to both replicating the product’s appearance and affixing the imitated company’s trademark, it unequivocally amounts to counterfeiting and substandard production. A particularly typical scenario involves technical personnel from a major enterprise who, upon leaving to join another firm, leverage their prior knowledge of the original company’s technologies, thereby gaining a competitive edge in producing knock‑offs.

　　A counterfeit manufacturer laid out the following calculation to a reporter: Foreign companies invest in state-of-the-art equipment, bear high labor costs, operating expenses, and R&D expenditures, whereas smaller domestic firms rely on standard machinery and low‑cost labor. Assuming identical raw material costs, if they can replicate the technological sophistication of foreign products, the total cost of producing an equivalent knife would inevitably be lower than that of their overseas counterparts—allowing them to compete at significantly reduced prices. With superior quality and lower prices, he argues this represents a win‑win for both himself and his customers—why wouldn’t he pursue it? Yet he may be overlooking product reliability: no matter how closely a knockoff mimics the original, differences in batch-to-batch consistency are likely to be substantial.

　　Some counterfeiters even openly advertise that they can custom‑make blades in a wide range of brands and specifications, and, with an overwhelming number of distributors demanding their products, they work overtime every day to keep up with production. Reportedly, to stay in step with major manufacturers, they are constantly developing new products. Meanwhile, agents representing several world‑renowned brands also source from them. In reality, most counterfeiters exercise selective targeting: they tend to proceed with caution when dealing with very large corporations or factories above a certain size, primarily because these companies wield strong anti‑counterfeiting measures and robust intellectual‑property protection. Consequently, they focus mainly on replicating mid‑to‑high‑end products. For small and medium‑sized enterprises, the costs of combating counterfeiting—often running into thousands of yuan for enforcement and litigation—are prohibitively high, making such efforts generally unaffordable.

　　Counterfeiters told reporters that as long as their products can pass for the real thing, there will be a market—and that’s precisely how they plan to raise capital and build their own business in the future. “Counterfeiting is only a temporary phase; we’re also developing our own brand. Occasionally, we produce small batches of knockoffs, but those are purely technical reproductions: we simply manufacture according to the customer’s specifications and take no responsibility for anything else.”

　　An industry expert remarked with a sense of resignation that engaging in such practices is, in essence, profiting through any means possible—much like Wenzhou’s leather shoes, which initially relied heavily on counterfeiting but gradually evolved to build their own brands. If we take a step back, we might view this as part of a company’s developmental trajectory; yet from a long-term industry perspective, it is clearly detrimental, harming not only the interests of legitimate manufacturers but also disrupting market order. Moreover, this issue is not confined to the cutting‑tool sector—it reflects broader problems within the overall market environment. The pervasive unhealthy business culture means that many private enterprises’ initial capital is often tainted by illegality, and remarkably, regions where counterfeit goods thrive tend to have relatively high economic levels. Consequently, local governments frequently turn a blind eye.

　　Once the production and sale of counterfeit goods have been addressed, the reporter’s biggest question remains: who is actually buying fakes? It is commonly believed that, due to their inferior quality, consumers who fall for counterfeits once will inevitably refuse them thereafter. Yet in reality, the market for counterfeit products persists—meaning there are still people who continue to purchase them. Why would anyone choose to buy fakes? Many point to “collusion driven by profit” as the answer.

　　Someone once told a reporter that most consumers knowingly purchase counterfeit products, precisely because “the quality is comparable and the price is lower.” Many users believe that if a fake tool can deliver 80% of the performance of a genuine brand at just 50% of its price, it’s worth using—and procurement personnel can profit from this arrangement. Even more troubling, some companies reportedly include both counterfeit and authentic blades in each box, suggesting collusion between procurement staff and counterfeiters.

　　In other words, there are indeed users and purchasing agents who, in order to cut costs or secure hefty kickbacks, collude with counterfeiters—while still maintaining a certain level of production quality. One distributor told a reporter that purchasing agents frequently ask him outright whether he carries any counterfeit products.

　　Once consensus is reached between manufacturers and purchasers, the introduction of counterfeit tools into production becomes all too easy and commonplace. Procurement personnel effectively switch sides, moving from the users’ camp to that of counterfeit‑makers; in some companies, the use of fake tools has even become an open secret between buyers and end‑users, with only management or the owner remaining unaware. “Counterfeiting” has thus turned into an unspoken rule: once personal ties are established across the various stages of the supply chain, they prove exceedingly difficult to dismantle. Counterfeiting, selling counterfeits, and buying counterfeits no longer operate as a linear process; instead, they have coalesced into a vast web that tightly ensnares the entire industry.