[perspicacious]

The fallacy of the “no animal testing” statements is that although complete cosmetic compositions are seldom, if ever, tested on animals, every ingredient in every cosmetic product has been thoroughly animal tested. Every ingredient has a known “lethal dose,” proven by administering measured amounts into subject animals until they die. That’s how the LD50 is calculated for every chemical. So we have to kill a lot of rats and rabbits for every cosmetic formulation.

In addition, to establish toxicity of each ingredient in streams and lakes we have to kill quite a few fish to establish the limits and biocompatibilty ratings.

Plus, there are skin irritation tests as well as eye inflammation trials, often done on shaved rabbit tummies and swabbed held open eyes. All these tests have the be done on all chemical offers commercially, otherwise we wouldn’t have data for or Safety Data Sheets.

This is the best kept secret in America.

[perspicacious]

Yes, it is easy to be intimidated by the opposition if they have deeper pockets. It depends on the value of the prize.  If you are in the right and the potential reward is significant you might get an attorney who will take the case for a participation position in the ongoing business.  If it’s not worth the hassle then just compound a respectable clone being careful to avoid any patent infringements.

[perspicacious]

It is my opinion that you can incorporate any product which you purchase as an ingredient in a new product. I think that the legal position called “first sale doctrine” applied here. Check with your attorney before proceeding because I am not an attorney and can’t offer legal advice that you can depend on.  But from what I understand as long as you don’t use their trade name or packaging and only use the material as an ingredient you are within your legal rights to add to it in the same way you add to other compounding mixtures which you might buy. I think that when you make each individual purchase you are not in violation of his patent rights since you are not depriving the patent owner of his revenue. 

There have been some precedent cases where bulk beauty shop brand name products were repackaged after slight additions were made with a new name and label and packaging.  That’s where initially learned of the “first sale doctrine.”