Am I looking at what I think I'm looking at?


Well-known member
The latter IMO, although they would disagree and claim a product developed "in house". a slightly more pronounced curve and the carbon content is a bit higher, even the typeface looks very familiar ( I have a pair as I needed to know first hand what was going on)

Inevitable and surprised it has taken so long - 11 years, then again it is a complicated and time consuming process to make limbs and risers in this way and probably why there is only one model in the range and supply is limited to a small weight/length range.

I guess no different these days to the myriad of laminated limbs on the market.

In the end it will be about back up support and warranty...

Timid Toad

Staff member
Fonz Awardee
It happens all the time. There's rip offs of most archery manufacturer's products out there, from risers, to limbs, to shafts, nocks and fletchings. Some are badged independently, others are fraudulently badged. Not all comes from the far east. Some direct scan limb copies come from the US!


Well-known member
The latter IMO, although they would disagree and claim a product developed "in house".
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Inevitable and surprised it has taken so long - 11 years...
Really... that long. I've been a designer and design engineer for all of my working life. It is heart breaking when the far east, or anyone else, steal designs. I was asked by a customer to copy the Yost offset barebow weight a few weeks ago. It is easy to copy but it's not my design so I refused to make it, whether protected or not.
Last edited:


Well-known member
Fonz Awardee
looks at the proliferation of the Hoyt Dovetail system for attaching limbs to risers... and copying stuff in the archery world has been going on for a long longer than that...


Active member
It really depends on wether the item is created by applying known techniques to a product where they have not been applied before - or if a product has been deconstructed so that proprietary knowledge has been “identified”. The former reflects that many countries have sucky patent laws. The later is just sucky.

Just look at the number of blatant GMX clones that have hit the market over the past few years to see how much the Chinese manufacturers care, and fairly obvious that a lot of buyers just don’t care. Often looks being more important than function.

I think Whitehart nailed it on the head with the support and warranty comment. But how long will it be before they are on sale from UK shops with the associated care packages? It won’t hit the Ukkha high end sales but could impact the entry level offering.

Not good for the industry but inevitable.



Unfortunately it is the price of success.
Unless you have the intent to protect a patent (or you receive R&D tax rebates for products with one of your own patents included) then patents become more of a marketing tool. It is illegal to declare a patent if one does not exist. Uukha claim a registered patent on the production process. However patent law is complex and depending on the Uukha patent it may or may not be easily circumvented. Often the more defined the patent has to be to create the inventive step and get a patent granted, the more easily it can be to dodge it. It also depends on where Uukha have filed their patent and if they can afford to chase them. I would suspect Uukha would look to issue a cease and desist in their main markets, assuming they have filed in the same. If there is a UK filed patent then Whitehart could take himself to court as an importer :)
A patent has to be filed in each country you wish to protect that business. It is typically around £5k per country and a lot more to actually get a patent granted. Consequently most manufacturers file in those countries where they are likely to get best return for the costs of protecting that business.
Best of luck chasing patent infringements in China though.