The jury met on January 11, 2020. Four main prizes (the 3rd prize was awarded twice this year) and six distinctions (equal in rank) were awarded; total entities:23.

Image rights: Aktion Plagiarius e.V.
Photos: left: original  /  right: plagiarism / counterfeit

Left Original: Genius GmbH, Limburg, Germany
Right Counterfeit: Ningbo A-Biao Plastic Industry & Trade Co., Ltd., PR China
The counterfeiter infringes various industrial property rights of Genius. He not only copies the product and packaging design, but also the company name "Genius", the product name "Nicer Dicer Quick", as well as text and pictures of the English-language operating instructions - only the Genius logo was retouched away here. The cheap materials reflect the inferior quality: the cutting blades are rather blunt and not as firmly anchored - there is a risk of breaking out and thus a risk of injury.

Left Original: Kayser Berndorf GmbH, Vienna, Austria
Right Counterfeit: Female Foods BV, Woerden, The Netherlands (liquidated)
A Belgian vendor acquired the counterfeits "in good faith".
The counterfeiter infringes the figurative mark "KAYSER" and copies 1:1 product and packaging. The fakes do not meet any quality and safety standards: The cap of a counterfeit charger has exploded under normal storage conditions and without any external influence. The chargers are rusted inside; the gas in the chargers is contaminated and not food safe.


Short version of the video

The 3. Prize was awarded twice this year:

Left Original: JULIUS-K9 Zrt., Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary
Right Counterfeit: Shenzhen Dog Favors Pet Supplies Co., Ltd., PR China
The counterfeiter copies 1:1 the product as well as the brand "JULIUS-K9". The inferior materials and reflectors have a negative effect on wearing comfort, visibility and durability. JULIUS-K9 counterfeits are often distributed via e-commerce platforms (e.g. Alibaba.com) and social media. The JULIUS-K9 Group has international design and brand protection and consistently enforces its rights against fake manufacturers and distributors.

Left Original: Wenger S.A., Delémont, Switzerland
Right Plagiarism: Manufacture: PR China / Distribution: Swiss Bag, Jerusalem, Israel
The Chinese manufacturer has adopted the design and construction of the original 1:1. He sells the plagiarisms through a worldwide distribution network, including Israel. The brand name "Wenger" is not being infringed, but the Wenger emblem figurative mark (cross on a square), which is protected by Wenger S.A. Swiss Bag sells both, original Wenger products and Wenger counterfeit products in its shop and on its website.

Six “Distinctions” (equal in rank) were awarded:

Left Original: Production / Roasting: Sicily
Exclusive Owner: Caffè Cultura GmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany
Right Plagiarism: Roasting and distribution: Torrefazione S. Francesco SAS (Mondial Caffè), Bastia Umbra, Italy
Since 2016, Caffè Cultura has the trademark rights to the “MariaSole” brand, registered since 2008, as well as the exclusive usage rights for the well-known packaging design. The previous licensee was withdrawn of all rights to the brand. Also, the fraudulent use of the old product identifiers (EAN) for the plagiarisms subsequently brought to the market, was prohibited. Nevertheless, the roaster Torrefazione S. Francesco S.A.S. continued to sell plagiarism products under the old brand "MariaSole" and also under the name "MariaGrazia". In order to differentiate itself from the plagiarism, Caffè Cultura had to change its packaging design, although it has all the industrial property rights for the well-known design.

Left Original: Haaga Kehrsysteme GmbH, Ebersbach, Germany
Right Plagiarism: Artred Smart Tech Co., Ltd., PR China
Design and technology of the professional sweeper were copied. The overall  impression is identical and there is a risk of confusion. The plagiarism was  discovered at a trade fair in the USA. Attempts by Haaga to obtain a sample of  the plagiarism via third parties from China, the USA and Russia have so far been  unsuccessful.

Left Original: Ledlenser GmbH & Co. KG, Solingen, Germany
Right Plagiarism: A German eBay vendor was warned by Ledlenser, he handed over remaining stocks and named his supplier.  Distribution: Stels Solutions Sp. z o.o., Poland and SATIS, Poland
The imitator copies not only the protected design including the 3D mark, but also the diver pictogram. The very low price is reflected in cheap materials (plastic instead of stainless steel), an insufficiently dimensioned heat sink and inferior LEDs as well as poor functionality: Despite 2 adjustment options for the light intensity, the result at the plagiarism is the same weak light in both positions.

Left Original: MERKUR Stahlwaren GmbH & Co. KG, Solingen, Germany
Right Plagiarism: Manufacturer: Guangzhou Ming Shi Shaver Ltd., PR China
Distribution: Chinese vendor via amazon.de
The plagiarism was advertised on Amazon.de in text and photo as a MERKUR shaver. The Chinese supplier delivered the plagiarism of Ming Shi. Ming Shi copies both, the razor and the packaging construction, incl. 2 viewing windows (over corner / round) and advertises like Merkur with "Tradition & Design".

Left Original: Nyta UG (haftungsbeschränkt), Karlsruhe, Germany
Right Plagiarism: Licht-Design Skapetze GmbH & Co. KG, Simbach, Germany
Design and function (largely free movement of a lampshade around an illuminant) were adopted almost 1:1, so that there is a risk of confusion with the original. The low-priced plagiarism is extremely cheap and inferior in terms of materials and workmanship. Skapetze denies that it is a plagiarism and refuses to stop distribution.

Left Original: SILIKOMART S.r.l., Mellaredo di Pianiga, Italy
Right Plagiarism: Distribution: Chinese vendor, who sells via Amazon and trade fairs
Shipping: via other Chinese vendors
The individual, protected product design of Silikomart was copied 1:1, the overall impression of original and plagiarism is identical, despite the difference in size. Silikomart uses for all its products high quality, elastic and liquid raw silicone - certified as suitable for direct food contact. The plagiarism is made of solid silicone, the mould is harder. The plagiarism is more expensive than the original.

Each year the jury is put together individually with specialists from diverse industries. The following persons formed this years' jury: