USPTO shows 2 supplement-class owner records: Bausch & Lomb Incorporated and BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMACEUTICALS, INC..
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
USPTO returned multiple live supplement-class records for the exact brand wordmark: Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. These records answer who owns registrations for the brand; th…
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 8 declared rows. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| CoQ10 | 100 mg | — | |
| Vitamin C | — | — | |
| Vitamin E | — | — | |
| Zinc | — | — | |
| Copper | — | — |
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.
These are the USPTO records behind the brand name. We show them all rather than choosing one by similarity.
NEW YORK, USA · Registration 7138985
1400 N. Goodman Street, Rochester, NEW YORK 14609, UNITED STATES
IC 005: Vitamin and mineral supplements.
DELAWARE, USA; NEW YORK, USA · Registration 2696725
8500 HIDDEN RIVER PARKWAY, TAMPA, FLORIDA 33637, UNITED STATES
IC 005: VITAMIN AND MINERAL SUPPLEMENTS.
This answers who owns registrations for the brand wordmark. It does not by itself prove which entity made, imported, or sold this specific product.
Review counts rose gradually. Written-review counts rose from 114 to 121 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
These links provide the public research context used alongside the captured panel. They do not establish safety, effectiveness, or product quality.
Which exact USPTO registrant is tied to this product's brand use? Evidence that would settle it: exact-wordmark ownership record.
Confirmed evidence
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Nothing could be independently confirmed from the available record.
Documented concerns
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
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
USPTO returned multiple live supplement-class records for the exact brand wordmark: Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, BAUSCH & LOMB PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.. These records answer who owns registrations for the brand; the separate product-to-owner or manufacturer link remains open.
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.
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.
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
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.
Exact-listing history records written-review counts from 114 on 2026-01-29 to 121 on 2026-06-15 (net +7). Count movements can reflect sales, listing variants, collection resets, or moderation; this history does not establish whether reviews are authentic.
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
What to ask and check
Ask the brand or seller
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.
Were the endorsing professionals compensated, and what exactly did they review?
An endorsement can be genuine and still not mean the product was tested. Ask whether they reviewed the formula, the manufacturing, or only the marketing.
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
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.
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 324208697214.
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.
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.