Shanghai Chihao Optics Co., Ltd. publishes evidence so a buyer can verify a specific point. We do not use one document to support a broader claim than the document allows.
CHIHAO optical-frame test report — STC26040081
- Source: STC test report archived as E054
- Report date: 24 April 2026
- Subject: four customer-submitted optical-frame samples marked CHIHAO
- What it supports: the tested items for the submitted samples met the requirements named in the report
- What it does not support: every CHIHAO model, every production batch, a pure-titanium material claim, or an identified manufacturer where the report field is blank
CHOPIN eyewear-frame test report — STC26040080
- Source: STC test report archived as E055
- Report date: 24 April 2026
- Subject: four customer-submitted eyewear-frame samples marked Chopin
- What it supports: the tested items for the submitted samples met the requirements named in the report
- What it does not support: every CHOPIN product, every batch, or an identified manufacturer where the report field is blank
CHOPIN trademark records
- Sources: registrations 61569688, 69924595, and 82185560, archived as E050–E052
- Subject: the specific marks, classes, goods, owners, and validity periods shown on those certificates
- What they support: Shanghai Chihao Optics is the English public entity corresponding to the Chinese owner named on the records in this evidence set
- What they do not support: manufacturing responsibility for a specific product or order
Historical quality records
Public reports from 2004 and 2016 identified separate CHOPIN sunglasses samples as nonconforming. The 2016 report listed visible-light transmittance, traffic-signal transmittance, and colour limits among the nonconforming items. These records concern the identified samples and periods; they do not establish a result for every CHOPIN product or for current production.
We do not erase these records or use them as proof of current quality. Company file E073 confirms that the original 2016 remediation and formal reinspection materials were not found in the archive. No equivalent original remediation or same-batch reinspection record is currently available for the 2004 report. Later records must be read as separate evidence, not as a reinspection of either historical sample.
Our current practice is to publish recent, sample-specific reports and state their limits. The applicable inspection and acceptance documents for an active order remain the controlling evidence.