A brand asked for its charger mould to be moved to a second factory and could not prove which tool was its own. The tool had been paid for, the invoice existed, and the mould carried no identification linking it to the buyer’s programme. Ownership that cannot be evidenced is difficult to exercise, and the evidence is created before the die is cut rather than after the relationship ends.
Charger mould ownership: the question behind the invoice
Paying for a tool and owning it are separate positions.
A buyer may have funded the tool, the factory may hold it, and the contract may be silent on who can move it. The three positions are reconciled in writing before the tool is made, because a dispute after the relationship ends has no good outcome for either party.
The tool that could not be collected
The identification was missing rather than the right.
The factory had three similar tools for three customers and no register linking each one to a programme. The buyer’s entitlement was probably good, and the practical difficulty of identifying the asset turned a straightforward handover into a negotiation about a replacement tool.
The two ownership models
Buyer-funded or supplier-funded, and each has a consequence.
A buyer-funded tool is normally the buyer’s property and is amortised into the unit price at once; a supplier-funded tool is recovered across the first orders and typically remains with the supplier. The model chosen decides the unit price today and the position on the tool later.
What identifies a mould
Four markings, and the second is the one usually absent.
The tool number, the programme or buyer reference, the cavity count and the date of manufacture. The markings are applied to the tool itself rather than to its file, because the file is exactly what is missing when a handover is needed.
| Item | Where it is recorded | Why it matters | Common gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tool number | Stamped on the tool | Links the asset to the programme | Number only in a file |
| Buyer reference | Stamped and in the contract | Establishes whose programme it serves | Not applied at all |
| Cavity count | Tool drawing | Sets the capacity and the cycle | Quoted differently from the tool |
| Date of manufacture | Tool record | Supports a maintenance history | Not recorded |
What the buyer needs in writing
Five clauses, and the fifth is the one that is forgotten.
The ownership of the tool, its identification, the conditions for moving it, the maintenance responsibility while it is held, and what happens to the tool if the programme is paused rather than ended. A pause is the situation in which tools are most often lost.
Where mould ownership disputes start
Three patterns, and the first is the most common.
A tool funded through the unit price rather than as a line; a second cavity added later without a change to the ownership record; and a tool modified for another customer’s version. Each is prevented by a register rather than by a discussion.
What happens when the programme ends
Three options, and the second is usually chosen.
The tool is moved to another supplier, it is retained against a possible restart, or it is scrapped and the scrap is confirmed. Where it is retained, the storage terms and the period are written down rather than left to goodwill.
What to check before tooling is released
Four items, and each is confirmed before the steel is cut.
The ownership clause, the identification to be stamped, the maintenance responsibility and the condition for release. A purchase order that covers those four converts an expensive conversation into a document.
How the tool register is kept
The register is a single list linking a tool to a programme, maintained by the factory and shared with the buyer. Each entry carries the tool number, the buyer reference, the cavity count, the date of manufacture and the programme it serves.
It is updated when a cavity is added, when a tool is modified or re-cut, and when a programme is paused rather than ended. The pause is the case that most often loses a tool, because neither party is actively looking after it.
The register also records the maintenance history and the conditions for release, which is what makes a later handover a reading of the record rather than a search of the factory.
A buyer who receives the extract with each order has, in practice, the evidence needed to exercise ownership, and the cost of maintaining it is one line in a spreadsheet.
FAQ
Who owns a mould paid for through the unit price?
It depends on what the contract says, and the default varies. Where the tool was recovered across the first orders, it commonly remains with the supplier, which is why the amortisation route is stated rather than assumed. Check what the contract says before assuming either position, and record the amortisation route in the order, because the default varies and the invoice alone does not settle ownership.
Can a tool be moved to another factory?
It can where the ownership and the release conditions allow it, and where the new factory can run it. The tool drawing, the moulding parameters and the maintenance history travel with the tool. Ask for the moulding parameters and the maintenance record with the tool, because a tool that arrives without them has to be re-characterised by the receiving factory.
What happens if the tool wears out?
The cavity count, the cycle and the maintenance history establish whether the wear is expected. The obligation to maintain, and to replace at the end of life, is allocated in the agreement rather than implied. Set a maximum cavity count and a maintenance interval in the agreement, so that wear is managed against a figure rather than discussed once a tool has failed.
Does a second cavity change the ownership position?
It can, because a second cavity is a new tool cost. The addition is recorded against the same register entry so that the ownership of both cavities is unambiguous. Record the addition against the same register entry with its own date and cost, so the ownership of both cavities is evidenced from one line rather than two. The register entry is the evidence in a later dispute.
Next step
Send the product, the volume and the tooling scope to Wecent Group through the contact page. The reply sets out the tooling line, the identification and the terms for holding and releasing the tool. Related reading: OEM and ODM charger manufacturing, charger manufacturing services and our charger factory. External references: World Intellectual Property Organization, China National Intellectual Property Administration, UK Intellectual Property Office, United States Patent and Trademark Office, BSI standards and ICC business solutions for trade.
{“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Who owns a mould paid for through the unit price?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”It depends on what the contract says, and the default varies. Where the tool was recovered across the first orders, it commonly remains with the supplier, which is why the amortisation route is stated rather than assumed.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Can a tool be moved to another factory?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”It can where the ownership and the release conditions allow it, and where the new factory can run it. The tool drawing, the moulding parameters and the maintenance history travel with the tool.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What happens if the tool wears out?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The cavity count, the cycle and the maintenance history establish whether the wear is expected. The obligation to maintain, and to replace at the end of life, is allocated in the agreement rather than implied.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Does a second cavity change the ownership position?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”It can, because a second cavity is a new tool cost. The addition is recorded against the same register entry so that the ownership of both cavities is unambiguous.”}}]}