Exact trademark owner identified
USPTO lists Amazon Technologies, Inc. (CORPORATION) in NEVADA, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
The useful read · Amazon Basics
Amazon Basics Eye Vitamin and Mineral Supplement
USPTO names Amazon Technologies, Inc. as the brand owner.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
What this means for you · The useful read
What the public record can establish
USPTO lists Amazon Technologies, Inc. (CORPORATION) in NEVADA, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this pro…
Panel, decoded
What the label discloses
6declared rows
6separately quantified
0combined blend totals
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 6 declared rows. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vitamin C | 250 mg | — | |
| Vitamin E | 90 mg | — | |
| Zinc | 40 mg | — | |
| Lutein | 5 mg | — | |
| Copper | 1 mg | — |
FDA rules (21 CFR 101.36) require the amount of each dietary ingredient per serving unless hidden in a declared “proprietary blend” (legal, but a transparency yellow flag). A label stating no amount at all is non-compliant — a checkable red flag. This panel states amounts; the open question is whether those declared amounts are independently verified and how they compare with relevant research.
vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.
Public ownership record
🇺🇸
Amazon Technologies, Inc.Corporation · exact mark owner for AMAZON BASICS
410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WASHINGTON 98109, UNITED STATES
Filed address
410 Terry Avenue North, Seattle, WASHINGTON 98109, UNITED STATES
This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.
Review history
–/ 5
not shownvisible ratings
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 39 to 81 across the observed period. That describes count movement, not review authenticity or product quality. A variation family may share some public counts.
Keepa exact-listing history · counts do not prove authenticity · variation family may share counts
Relevant research · quick links
Read the ingredient evidence directly
These links provide the public research context used alongside the captured panel. They do not establish safety, effectiveness, or product quality.
Want the complete evidence trail?
The summary stops at product-specific facts. The full report preserves every source, calculation, limitation, and unresolved check for review or sharing.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out01
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Confirmed
Documented concerns
What needs caution00
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing06
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Multi-ingredient formula — panel read, serving weight unknown
We read the full Supplement Facts panel from the listing-image panel (below), but the label doesn’t state a serving weight, so the arithmetic can’t run. A gap in the label’s information, not evidence of a problem.
Research context is available for the listed ingredients
Published sources describe how zinc have been studied. This is ingredient context only; the record does not establish that this product delivers the studied dose or outcome. Sources: NIH ODS — Zinc fact sheet, PubMed search: zinc supplementation trial.
No label filed with NIH's public catalog
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
This item belongs to a catalog variation family
The paid catalog links this exact item to a parent listing. Review counts on public product pages may be shared across sizes, flavors, or other variants, so the count history is listing context — not evidence that reviewers received or tested this exact variant.
180-day review-count history is on file
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 39 on 2026-04-22 to 81 on 2026-07-14 (net +42). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
Which specific study supports this claim — and was it run on this exact formula?
Ask for the citation, how many people took part, the dose used, and whether the study tested this product or just one ingredient in it. Ingredient research is not product evidence.
2
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
3
Where are the ingredients sourced, and where is the product manufactured?
“Made in USA” can describe only the final bottling step. Ask which country the actives came from and whether the facility is audited.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
1
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 195515118385.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
3
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 22, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.