An invention is a human-made creation that did not exist before, while a discovery is the uncovering of something that already exists in nature. Patent law protects inventions but not discoveries, because natural phenomena cannot be owned - only their practical applications can. For example, Isaac Newton discovered gravity, but since gravity is a natural force and not an invention, it could not be patented; however, a device that uses gravity in a novel way could be.

In the same way, there are several schools around the world that teach seeing without eyes, but none of them has invented it - claiming so would be misleading, because this ability is an innate human potential that can be trained, just like language acquisition: every child is born with the natural capacity to learn language, but no single school or teacher can claim to have invented it. And just as with language schools, there can be differences in the quality of teaching and in the methods used to teach.

It is worth noting that Mark Komissarov, who attempted to obtain a patent for the concept of seeing without eyes, did not succeed, as the application was ultimately abandoned by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The most likely reason is that the claim was directed toward a natural human ability rather than a true invention. Since patent law excludes discoveries, abstract ideas, and innate human faculties from protection, the application could not meet the fundamental requirement of being a novel, man-made creation. While specific teaching methods or training systems can be developed and refined, the underlying capacity itself belongs to human nature and therefore cannot be patented or owned by any individual or institution.

In the same way, the expression seeing without eyes itself cannot be trademarked, because it is a descriptive phrase that directly refers to the natural ability being taught. Trademark law does not allow the registration of generic or purely descriptive terms that simply explain what something is, as this would unfairly prevent others from using common language. While unique brand names, logos, or specific program titles related to the training may be eligible for trademark protection, the general expression seeing without eyes remains in the public domain and cannot be owned by anyone.