When the Cat's away the mice will play.

[igorponger]

𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗙 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝘂𝗿 heavy 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗮 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗿𝘂𝗯𝗯𝗲𝗿𝘀.

An exemplary case of the late:
--YINHE MOON 12 is a remarkable representative of a crafty fraud by Yinhe. This given rubber is using a sponge material apparently different from the original product, despite any alteration of sponge being explicitly forbidden by ITTF.

Herewith, lets make out the nifty trick by Yinhe of not submitting extra samples of sponge for ITTF autorisation. Yes, it is an apparent form of commercial fraudulence by Yinhe that is directly intended to avoid extra approval fees in making new rubber products.

Yes, not only it makes an utter contradiction against ITTF laws, it is also reducing ITTF income by a huge sum. By now, ITTF did miss a lot of money fees still unpaied by Chinese.

We do face a hard dilemma now -- should we Iend heavy troubles for the Chinese suppliers or let them still more benefit of making the bastard products without paying due Fees to ITTF account.? What a vexed dilemma, indeed.

___________
Ве an erudite of everything.

 

[igorponger]

(continued)
The abuse of approval fees is a common guilty with the major brands of China.

Some most remarkable examples:

🔴 YINHE Big Dipper ITTF 49 -007 sandwich rubber is now produced and marketed under 4 brand names (1 original + 3 frauds)

This is meant to say
3 sponge types never submitted to ITTF and pertinent approval fees missed.

🔵 YINHE Jupiter ITTF 49 -025 sandwich rubber is now produced and marketed under 5 brand names (1 original + 4 frauds)

This is meant to say
4 sponge types never submitted to ITTF and pertinent approval fees missed.

Should we onward forgive such a deviation from a fair commerce and from basics of fair competition? It is up to ITTF to take a final decision, we believe.

 

[turbozed]

Is it an abuse by non-Chinese rubber companies to release rubbers in 3 or 4 different sponge thicknesses?

 

[zeio]

Where is your proof that they didn't submit multiple sponges with the same topsheet for authorization? An ITTF number is assigned for the same topsheet with all variants of sponge.

https://equipment.ittf.com/#/equipment/manuals

2.1 PRODUCT AND BRAND
Authorisation is given to the top sheet plus the top sheet / sponge combination. All top sheets
with the same ITTF number and brand name must have the same geometry, properties, and
branding area (wording and numbering).

...

SAMPLES
The samples that are submitted to the ITTF for testing are taken to be representative of the
normal production, and our decisions are based on that. The received samples will be stored
for future reference.

2.7 PACKAGING

...

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN STATEMENT

...For example, the country-of-origin statement may not change from
“Made in Canada” to “Made in USA”. However minor changes to wording are permitted, after
the change has been recorded in the ITTF database. A change which only reflects a change in
sponge is also permitted.
For racket coverings which are sold with multiple versions of sponge, a different country of
origin statement may be used for each version, in order to specify sponges from different
countries.

4.1 GET AUTHORISED

...

SAMPLES
The brand should submit the following to the address given under 1.3 CONTACT.
For pimples in/anti
 1 pcs top sheet sample of black and one additional colour (without sponge).
 Complete racket covering sample of:
- each colour (except black colour) with each available sponge, with the thickest
available sponge
- black colour with one sponge colour only, with the thickest available sponge

 

[lodro]

Where is your proof that they didn't submit multiple sponges with the same topsheet for authorization?

This is our Igor we are talking about, as always he is completely exempt from having to submit any evidence of any statement he offers, always has been. 😁
QED