$450.00 a pop!! You beauté, page-5

When LMDB was relaunched under new owners in June, the CEO said that he saw TPM® as “integral to the future commercial success of the company’s skincare line”. He identified TPM® dermal delivery as a major point of differentiation for LMDB from its competitors and said he planned to expand the promotional activities for LMDB’s skincare line containing TPM®, strengthen existing distribution relationships and establish new distribution channels.

You might recall that LMDB had been branding TPM® delivery system as Syntoc Actif since late 2009, and had only just switched to identifying TPM® when it released its Body Firming and Toning Serum in November last year and the Anti-Aging Pressed Powder in March this year. (Online, nine previously released LMDB products are still identified as using Syntoc Actif delivery system.) It is unclear whether the switch from Syntoc Actif was initiated by LMDB or came at the request of Phosphagenics.

So I was a bit skeptical of the direction that the “new” LMDB was taking in promoting TPM® after the launch of their first product – the Glow Pen – in September. The Glow Pen was said to be backed by 28 patents but TPM® wasn’t mentioned anywhere.

Fortunately, in my opinion, it looks like TPM® is now back in the frame. However I’m interested to know what others think about this. When TPM® delivery system is licensed or sublicensed from Phosphagenics, such as by Themis, Novartis or LMDB, should it be obligatory under the licensing contract that POH’s trademark brand name, TPM®, be identified?