Beware the FAKE "CE" mark

[g29]

I always thought it meant, "Chinesium E'spe-ci'al".

14,800 pairs of fake Nikes worth more $2.2 million seized by customs agents in 2 shipping containers marked "napkins" at LA/Long Beach Seaport

$2,000 AIR JORDANS

 

[amirm]

Sorry, but this is an urban legend that keeps on going through the web. there is no such thing as a "FAKE" CE mark or a Chinese Export logo.

People keep on spreading that on the web for more than 10 years, and no one has ever presented any evidence of the existence of such a fake "Chinese Export" logo. To the contrary, there is even an official statement from the European commission that such a logo or any other similar logo does not exist.

I don't understand your point of view. Of course there are fake CE marks on plenty of gear. There is nothing to be "proven" here. They copy every bit of a legal product markings including their CE logo. But with very different and possibly unsafe design.

CE reference provided just says such mark doesn't represent CE which we already know.

 

[Juwieh]

Of course there are fake CE marks on plenty of gear.

Yes, if you mean "fake" in a way that they have been put on the product without having run the required conformity assessment procedures.

But the initial claim was that you could see from the shape/proportions of the logo that these procedures have not been run, because some obscure Chinese Export logo would help you in any way in avoiding these. This is just wrong, the proportions of the logo have nothing to do with that, and there is no "Chinese Export".

CE reference provided just says such mark doesn't represent CE which we already know.

If you refer to the EU commission's answer, no, this is not what it says. It says just the same as I do: That "Chinese Export" thing is a "misconception" and does not exist, and CE marks with narrow spacing are just poor design, but still a CE mark.

 

[JohnYang1997]

The point is there is no genuine or fake CE marking. It's wrong or correct CE marking. It's still CE marking that serves the same purpose. Whether the product is designed to be safe has nothing to the marking itself. It's Not that putting a "fake" ce mark and you don't get to the responsibility of sticking a CE mark. It's still a CE mark just a wrong one.

 

[amirm]

If you refer to the EU commission's answer, no, this is not what it says. It says just the same as I do: That "Chinese Export" thing is a "misconception" and does not exist, and CE marks with narrow spacing are just poor design, but still a CE mark.

EU is not an authority on what exists in China or not. They are trying to defend the poor usage of their marks which in my opinion is wrong. They have done a poor job of a) allowing self-certification and b) allowing mis-typed logos to go with it.

The China Export thing is an excuse for any product from China misusing CE mark. That is all it is. There is obviously no organizing licensing such as it has no meaning by itself. It is a legal defense and as such, it exists.

 

[JohnYang1997]

EU is not an authority on what exists in China or not. They are trying to defend the poor usage of their marks which in my opinion is wrong. They have done a poor job of a) allowing self-certification and b) allowing mis-typed logos to go with it.

The China Export thing is an excuse for any product from China misusing CE mark. That is all it is. There is obviously no organizing licensing such as it has no meaning by itself. It is a legal defense and as such, it exists.

This part is very true.

 

[boXem]

They have done a poor job of a) allowing self-certification and b) allowing mis-typed logos to go with it.

At least they did something. Ever looked at the US system? Sorry, but I have no polite word to describe it.
a) Self certification is not allowed for everything.
b) Mis typed logos are forbidden. Products found with missing or mistyped logos will at least be removed from the market.

 

[Juwieh]

EU is not an authority on what exists in China or not. They are trying to defend the poor usage of their marks which in my opinion is wrong. They have done a poor job of a) allowing self-certification and b) allowing mis-typed logos to go with it.

Well, this is a completely separate topic, which is not related to the debate here, but you should also acknowledge the fact that harder regulations mean less products being available, or at higher prices, and more bureaucracy. Whether you value that higher rhan safety issues or not, ist debatable, but it's at least more than the US have and there are hardly any reports on fatalities because of incompliant products.

The China Export thing is an excuse for any product from China misusing CE mark. That is all it is. There is obviously no organizing licensing such as it has no meaning by itself. It is a legal defense and as such, it exists.

Can you please provide a single example where any Chinese manufacturer has ever tried to use a "Chinese Export" logo as an excuse? I have looked for it, there is no evicence or indication of this anywhere on the web. Only people caliming it would happen all the time.
And it is not a legal defense, that excuse would help you absolutely nothing when arguing with authorities or trying to convince a judge, it would only make you look stupid and dishonest.

b) Mis typed logos are forbidden.

True.

Products found with missing or mistyped logos will at least be removed from the market.

Not true. In fact the customs are not very picky and let anything through that is reasonably recognizable as a CE mark. That's why you find so many disproportionate marks on products in the EU.

 

[KozmoNaut]

To my knowledge, no company has ever tried using the "China Export" excuse. It's a myth, pure and simple. One could even speculate that it was started with imperialist and possibly racist intentions, to sow doubts about products produced in China.

As for genuine products getting the CE mark spacing wrong, I have a couple of Kensington trackballs here, both assembled in China. One has the C and E too close together, perhaps to make everything fit on the label. I can assure you that it is 100% genuine and that Kensington fully adheres to the relevant regulations.

 

[Wombat]

China commerce denigrators need to put considered justification forward in order to rise above the possibility of plain political bias.

 

[sergeauckland]

To my knowledge, no company has ever tried using the "China Export" excuse. It's a myth, pure and simple. One could even speculate that it was started with imperialist and possibly racist intentions, to sow doubts about products produced in China.

As for genuine products getting the CE mark spacing wrong, I have a couple of Kensington trackballs here, both assembled in China. One has the C and E too close together, perhaps to make everything fit on the label. I can assure you that it is 100% genuine and that Kensington fully adheres to the relevant regulations.

Frankly, I am less bothered by the CE mark being wrongly spaced, I'm much more bothered by products, many (most?) coming from China that have a CE logo, however presented, but no Declaration of Conformity with the product documentation. Without the DoC, a purchaser can have no idea which standards the product adheres to, and who is responsible for 'placing the product on the market'.

Reputable manufacturers that manufacture in China do this, often the last page in the User Manual is the DoC. Those that sell a £5 DAC on £10 amplifier including free postage don't. S.

 

[boXem]

Not true. In fact the customs are not very picky and let anything through that is reasonably recognizable as a CE mark. That's why you find so many disproportionate marks on products in the EU.

As a lot of things in the EU, depends from the country

 

[KozmoNaut]

Frankly, I am less bothered by the CE mark being wrongly spaced, I'm much more bothered by products, many (most?) coming from China that have a CE logo, however presented, but no Declaration of Conformity with the product documentation. Without the DoC, a purchaser can have no idea which standards the product adheres to, and who is responsible for 'placing the product on the market'.

Reputable manufacturers that manufacture in China do this, often the last page in the User Manual is the DoC. Those that sell a £5 DAC on £10 amplifier including free postage don't. S.

Yes, and that is something one should be aware of, when having manufacturing done in China. A lot of companies will make a product to any quality you wish and according to how much you want to pay for it. In it's purest form, it's a case of "you get what you pay for", with "you get what you inspect for" on top.

Chinese companies make some of the most well-regarded electronics and other products today, and other Chinese companies make the worst kind of cheap junk you can imagine. Sometimes it's even the same company producing products in the same segments, but at wildly different standards.

You need to know that going in, and don't try to cut too many corners.

 

[Wombat]

Yes, and that is something one should be aware of, when having manufacturing done in China. A lot of companies will make a product to any quality you wish and according to how much you want to pay for it. In it's purest form, it's a case of "you get what you pay for", with "you get what you inspect for" on top.

Chinese companies make some of the most well-regarded electronics and other products today, and other Chinese companies make the worst kind of cheap junk you can imagine. Sometimes it's even the same company producing products in the same segments, but at wildly different standards.

You need to know that going in, and don't try to cut too many corners.

And importers, wholesalers and retailers in many countries unquestioningly on-sell these products to ignorant consumers for good profit.

 

[sergeauckland]

And importers, wholesalers and retailers in many countries unquestioningly on-sell these products to ignorant consumers for good profit.

However, within the EU, any that do so risk prosecution if they get found out. It's the responsibility of whoever 'places the product on the market' i.e. the importer, distributor or dealer, to ensure that CE compliance is met, not the manufacturer unless they're the same person.

I accept that at least in the UK, Trading Standards are very limited in their reach so it's unlikely that sellers at car boot sales will ever be prosecuted, but major retailers could well be. I wonder who is the legal 'Placer on the market' for those on Amazon, Ebay or Facebook marketplace.

S.

 

[filo97s]

However, within the EU, any that do so risk prosecution if they get found out. It's the responsibility of whoever 'places the product on the market' i.e. the importer, distributor or dealer, to ensure that CE compliance is met, not the manufacturer unless they're the same person.

I accept that at least in the UK, Trading Standards are very limited in their reach so it's unlikely that sellers at car boot sales will ever be prosecuted, but major retailers could well be. I wonder who is the legal 'Placer on the market' for those on Amazon, Ebay or Facebook marketplace.

S.

A quick question... am I blind or even Audio-GD doesn't have the CE certification nor any other certification such as TÜV, FCC and RoHS? As far as I know, they couldn't even sell those products in EU, without heavy sanctions and even imprisonment for up to 6 months...

 

[sergeauckland]

A quick question... am I blind or even Audio-GD doesn't have the CE certification nor any other certification such as TÜV, FCC and RoHS? As far as I know, they couldn't even sell those products in EU, without heavy sanctions and even imprisonment for up to 6 months...

I've had a look at Audio-GD's web site, and they don't look like any of them claim CE certification. So, if you're buying them direct for your own use, that's fine as you're not 'putting them on the market'. Anyone reselling them would have to apply CE certification. Having said that, EU customs may have a view on that, but in my (UK) experience importing direct from China for my own use, they don't care.

Those Audio GD items look well made, but effectively, caveat emptor.

S

 

[filo97s]

I've had a look at Audio-GD's web site, and they don't look like any of them claim CE certification. So, if you're buying them direct for your own use, that's fine as you're not 'putting them on the market'. Anyone reselling them would have to apply CE certification. Having said that, EU customs may have a view on that, but in my (UK) experience importing direct from China for my own use, they don't care.

Those Audio GD items look well made, but effectively, caveat emptor.

S

I've seen that in Italy, the reseller simply sticks an adhesive label with the CE/FCC logo: is this legal, or should be printed directly on metal?

 

[sergeauckland]

I've seen that in Italy, the reseller simply sticks an adhesive label with the CE/FCC logo: is this legal, or should be printed directly on metal?

It could be perfectly legal provided they create a 'Technical Constructional File' that defines the tests they carried out to justify CE certification. They should also provide a 'Declaration of Conformity" certificating which standards they are claiming adherence to. If they do that, then they're legal. If not, they're not.

Having said that, not many importers bother, as it's up to local Trading Standards Inspectors to enforce the rules, and SI are overstretched in most countries, so small importers get ignored.

S

 

[Juwieh]

So, if you're buying them direct for your own use, that's fine as you're not 'putting them on the market'.

No, you're not, but Audio GD is, because they sell it to you. By shipping it to you, they put it on the market.

Anyone reselling them would have to apply CE certification. Having said that, EU customs may have a view on that, but in my (UK) experience importing direct from China for my own use, they don't care.

Well, maybe they don't, but they're supposed to, and I know that German customs do care.

I've seen that in Italy, the reseller simply sticks an adhesive label with the CE/FCC logo: is this legal, or should be printed directly on metal?

The regulation demands an "indelible" affixation, whatever that means. In the end, nothing is really "indelible", so probably a very sticky label that you can't easily remove might be accepted; a label that you can pull off in five seconds probably not.