Search

CET and skills guides

Study and gain CET points through OT’s online CET exams, and access archived CET, CPD articles and skills guides in our education library

Find out more

Science and vision

News and features about the latest scientific developments and advances in optometry, ophthalmology and eye medicine

Find out more

Professional support

News and features about the latest developments relating to professional support from across optics. This includes updates from optical organisations such as the AOP and the GOC

Find out more

In practice

News and in-depth features about business management and career development in optics

Find out more

Jobs

Explore the latest UK and global jobs in the optical sector for optometrists, dispensing opticians and more

Find out more

Trademark dispute over dry eye treatment settled

Ophthalmic product company, threesixty, has issued an apology to The EyeBag Company for the sale of an eye mask that infringed the company’s patent

gavel

A trademark dispute has been settled between ophthalmic product company, threesixty, and the manufacturer of a patented dry eye treatment.

The EyeBag Company issued High Court proceedings against threesixty over the sale of an eye mask containing flax seeds for the treatment of meibomian gland dysfunction.

After the claim was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, threesixty issued an apology on its website.

The company stated that the warm eye compresses that were sold on its website between 2016 and 2018 had been removed from sale.

When approached for comment by OT, owner of The EyeBag Company, Professor Teifi James, highlighted that the eye bag has become very popular over the past 15 years and some people do not realise that it is a registered trademark; whether written as one word or two, singular or plural.

“All variations of eye bag are protected and covered by the trademark registration in most countries,” he highlighted.

“Other brands of warm compresses are not eye bags,” Professor James added.

“I’m pleased that we were able to arrive at a mutually satisfactory settlement without having to go through the whole court process on this occasion,” he shared.

The settlement is the second legal action that Professor James has taken against a company this year.

Legal action was also brought against a Lancashire company, Wheatybags, for patent and trademark infringements.

Image credit: Pixabay