So I came across this knock-off or copy of the Gobi Stealth Rack. Curious to know if anyone has one and how is it holding up? Not saying I would buy one, especially for $1300, I would put in the extra wait time and extra cost to get the original from Gobi.

Free Shipping Roof Rack Kit With Rear Ladder For TOYOTA 4Runner 2010-2019 With Sunroof

Pictures used from the link above ^^^

Attached Images

       

If this was $600 I’d take a chance and buy it.

Yup, I would too.

Also agreed - $600 it would be tempting to jump on. Much higher and you can get an UpTOPOverland, Prinsu, etc. For $300 more you can get the actual Gobi + ladder + upgraded hatch struts + a backpack + 2 extra cross bars

I actually prefer the mesh floor on the Cartrimhome rack to the expanded metal floor on the Gobi. My ARB rack has that type of floor and it's great to run tie downs through. (ARB no longer uses that type of floor btw, they went to expanded metal floor similar to the Gobi.)


However, with a lack of available add ons and included items it's not really worth it. Let alone questionable build quality and an impending suit from Gobi means no warranty for sure

Those mounting brackets look scary. If you changed those out to solid blocks of aluminum or something, I wonder if the rack would be any good?

I had an aluminum rack made locally for a couple hundred less than that. The price point doesn't make it enticing enough to gamble with.

That's a lot of Yuan for a Goby.

What could possibly go wrong....

A copy it may be, but I don't think it's accurate to call it a fake. They are not holding it out as a "Gobi" rack.

I am not an expert on the differences between a fake, a copy, a counterfeit, a knock off, a replica, or what ever.

What would be the correct lingo for the thread title? Look-a-like?

thats alot of cheddar for chinesium

I would maybe call it a knock-off. I'd put copy, knock-off, and replica on one side, and then fake and counterfeit on the other. The first group replicates the object, the second group copies both the object and the trademark elements so that consumers are confused about the source of the goods. In this case, people familiar with racks might recognize, as you immediately did, that it looks similar to a Gobi rack. But I don't think people would look at that webpage and think that the company is pretending it's actually a Gobi brand rack.

(As an intellectual property attorney the distinction matters to me, at least! But I'm also OK with copies. If you don't have a patent you can rely on your quality and reputation, and Gobi seems to be doing well with that judging by their lead times. Meanwhile consumers who want the look and are willing to gamble pay less for a similar product, and the price of the Gobi should be restrained with competition.)

I wonder if Gobi is going sue them... I remember they went after Whitson Metalworks back in the day for a Gobi style rack or something.

Maybe our resident attorney @ShermanOlsen can tell us more...
Multi-purpose storage rack for a sport utility vehicle | Patexia.com

Gobi vs Whitson Metalworks on a Patent - Driving - ITS Forum

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the clarification. The original post has been edited.

Agreed. Far too many people think that it is OK to copy an item in its entirety and call it a "replica".

One one side there is the item that, at first blush, kind of looks like the real thing at a distance, but is not marketed as such.

In the late 60's, when Rolex started to become a renowned watch company, Seiko came out with a watch that looked similar - fluted gold colored bezel, white dial etc. - but made no pretense of being a Rolex. Both Rolex and Seiko were marketed to GIs in the PX in Vietnam.

On the other side is the company that markets an item as if it were the real thing, bouncing the names around, using trademarked markings and so forth - those are out and out counterfeits and selling that is a felony.

A controversial court case was recently decided between Rolex and a company called Californienne that "customized" Rolex watches. Because they implied that the watches in final form were somehow sanctioned by Rolex, the court decides that this misled customers.