If they did steal the IP as claimed
it's claimed by BK. While Maynuo say a different story.
What is their story? I have not heard it.
So saying "Maynuo is a rip-off" it's wrong IMO.
Itech have been around a long time, and it's not disputed that Mr Maynuo (I don't now his real name) left Itech and started Maynuo, and then bam, products that look and feel almost identical emerge.
To deny that there is ripping-off being done is a ludicrous position to hold, it's demonstrably untrue.
The only question is whether or not Maynuo stole the IP as claimed. In either case the fact remains they are "rip-offs". They have been
deliberately designed to look and work very similar to the original Itech's. This cannot be denied, it's an obvious fact.
Now it could very well be the case that the Maynuo "rip-off's" are actually better than the originals in some ways, and that's a different argument. But the fact is they are still rip-off's, so IMO it's certainly the right word to use.
From a design point of view, if you left a company and started your own to produce similar products, and you
didn't take the IP,
why would you go to the effort to engineer them again to look and feel almost identical?
Sorry, but the case does not look good for Maynuo being an innocent party here.