When I published my article entitled "The Carl Osborne Counterfeit chips", a number of people including those on the standards committee commented that 'manufactured after the casinos closed' would have been a better description.
I successfully argued that "The Carl Osborne chips manufactured after the casins closed" didnt read too well.
Also, in that case, those chips were made by the same manufacturer, so I could at least see the point of view.

In this case, the chips were made by someone who realistically had no right to do so. I argue they have to be construed as counterfeits for both that reason, and the fact many are virtually indistinguishable from the real thing.
I will let you continue arguing with Gene and Michael