TL;DR
Get your wardrobe favorites delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Fenty Skin, Huda Beauty and Glow Recipe drew online questions after teasing similar self-slicing eye-patch packaging. Beauty founders say shared suppliers and long, overlapping development timelines make it difficult to determine who developed the format first from launch dates alone.
Fenty Skin, Huda Beauty and Glow Recipe have prompted an online debate after teasing eye patches in similar self-slicing packaging. Beauty founders speaking to Hypebae say the products’ appearance and release timing do not establish which brand developed the format first, because suppliers, product timelines and packaging technologies can overlap.
Huda Beauty founder Huda Kattan said the brands may have received the packaging from the same supplier, adding that the formulas differ. In a comment cited by Hypebae, Kattan said: “I think it’s pretty obvious that we all got screwed over by the same packaging supplier. Formulas are different, but we were lied to on the exclusivity with the packaging supplier, pretty crazy.” Her statement is an account of the brands’ supplier arrangements; the report does not independently establish what the supplier promised or whether an exclusivity agreement existed.
Wonder Bath, a Korean beauty brand, debuted its Slice Serum Eye Patches in July, before the three brands later teased similar packaging, according to the report. That earlier release has led some commenters to credit the brand with originating the format. But Allyse Cirillo, founder and CEO of SAINT JŌ, cautioned that a public launch does not show when development began. She told Hypebae that products can be in development for as long as 24 months before consumers see them, leaving room for separate brands to work on related ideas at the same time.
Cirillo pointed to shared suppliers, stock packaging and overlapping development schedules as possible explanations for similar products. Kira Piskalova, co-founder of Beyond Facials, told Hypebae that Korean packaging manufacturer Samhwa holds patents for rotating and grinding cosmetic containers and is publicly listed as the manufacturer of a closely similar grind-cut hydrogel eye-patch dispenser. That information, she said, suggests the mechanism existed within a broader Korean packaging ecosystem. It does not, by itself, identify which brand first developed or commissioned the products in the current debate.
Packaging Similarity Is Not Proof
The dispute highlights how product launches can prompt questions about credit in the beauty market. Similar packaging can lead to allegations of copying, but the public usually cannot see private design work, supplier discussions or development dates. The available information in this report does not establish whether the brands’ packages came through the same supplier or whether any party had an exclusive arrangement.
It also distinguishes packaging novelty from skincare performance. Cirillo told Hypebae that a self-cutting mechanism may change the user experience without demonstrating that a formula works better. A distinctive dispenser is not evidence of stronger results, and product claims need to be assessed separately from the packaging.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Earlier Launches, Longer Development
The timeline is central to the dispute. Wonder Bath’s July launch came before the three other brands’ teasers, but Cirillo said development can take up to 24 months. Without access to each brand’s development records, the release order alone cannot establish who conceived the mechanism first, who adapted it for a product, or whether teams arrived at similar designs independently.
Piskalova also placed the packaging in a wider manufacturing setting, citing Samhwa’s patents and role as a listed manufacturer of a similar dispenser. Her account points to existing technology and manufacturing capacity, rather than confirming that any one beauty brand originated the mechanism. She compared the possibility of the format becoming commonplace to airless pumps, which have moved from a premium feature into broader skincare use.
“I think it’s pretty obvious that we all got screwed over by the same packaging supplier. Formulas are different, but we were lied to on the exclusivity with the packaging supplier, pretty crazy.”
— Huda Kattan, founder of Huda Beauty, as quoted by Hypebae
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Development Records Remain Private
Who developed the format first remains unresolved in the report. The public launch sequence does not reveal when each company began work, and the cited supplier and patent information does not establish a definitive origin. Huda Beauty’s allegation about exclusivity is attributed to Kattan, but no supplier response or contract details are included.
The report also does not provide independent testing or comparative evidence about the products’ formulas, performance or efficacy. It is unclear whether the brands will release more information about their packaging arrangements, and no formal finding of copying or infringement is described.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Brand Responses and Product Performance
Further statements from Fenty Skin, Huda Beauty, Glow Recipe or the supplier could clarify how the packaging was sourced and whether exclusivity was discussed. The report does not identify a planned investigation, legal action or scheduled announcement.
As the products reach consumers, their formulas and performance may provide additional points of comparison. Piskalova told Hypebae that shoppers may pay less attention to the mechanism if the format becomes common; whether that happens, and how the products perform, remains to be seen.
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Key Questions
Which brands are involved in the eye-patch packaging debate?
Fenty Skin, Huda Beauty and Glow Recipe teased similar self-slicing eye-patch packaging. The report also notes that Wonder Bath launched its Slice Serum Eye Patches in July with a similar mechanism.
Does the earliest launch prove which brand developed the packaging first?
No. Wonder Bath launched in July, but Cirillo told Hypebae that products can be in development for up to 24 months. A release date alone does not establish when a product was conceived or developed.
What did Huda Kattan say about the similar packaging?
Kattan said the brands may have been misled about packaging exclusivity by a shared supplier, and said their formulas differ. The report does not independently verify the supplier arrangement or her allegation.
Does self-slicing packaging mean the eye patches are more effective?
Not based on the information in the report. Cirillo said a packaging feature can change the product experience without amounting to a formulation breakthrough. No comparative efficacy evidence is provided.
Source: rss
Fall Picks
fall essentials
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
