for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

Greekman,

I reiterate - STARPOL is a Registered Trade Mark - Stanelco have it in the EU. It is NOT possible to register (and therefor obtain exclusive use) of a generic or descriptive term. The Registered Trademark is STARPOL - not STARPOL 2000. It has no added matter (such as a logo). Stanelco have exclusive use in law of STARPOL for the goods they have registered it for - in the EU.

Lendell have exclusive use in the States for the goods thery have registered it for - no buts.

What do you think the point of a Registered Trade Mark is?

And BTW, I posted the Trade Mark info in response to another post mentioning Lendell's STARPOL in the States.

ROFLOL
OBLOMOV has hurriedly edited his penultimate post on filthyboots

Note the rise BEFORE Oblomov started posting 08/06/2005- a Trogan Horse ?

Blinger - you forgot to say 'ROT' on your last two posts, so I'll say it for you.

olie
give the guys a break, they dont understand you. ( no chartists amongst the faithful either ).

cant say i agree with you long term, but even david blunkett could recognize the downtrend on this one for now. no major news = DOWN.

Give those rampers a break?, there is only two parts of their anatomy I will break, as it head s for 10p- besides I have been short since 30p`ish, anyway . (at a considerable a point on a spread) that Russian is a sneaky tw8t, I love to see him squirm as it falls,he no sooner started ramping it with the other prats on that dreadful bb than it fell, they are so thick though they haven`t noticed- down -50% in 5 months, genius

ROTFFLMFAO,so there- check TAD thread for angling stuff

g`luck off to the polo club @ Tetbury, Charles wants some advice on trading
toodle pip


ps you can share my Krug for the hangover if you leave now

Major news next week is what I am hearing from several sources

Major news = UP

30th November or 1st December would be favorite, but you cannot rule out Monday (28th) or the Stanelco favorite of Tuesday (29th)

Erik the Red

Oblomov your wrong about Starpol, as here is another ACTIVE trademark assignment for STARPOL in the USA and it does not belong to Lendell

The reason it is allowed is that just like Stanelco's Starpol, it has totally different uses to that of Lendell's Starpol

Staley also had their trademark approved well after Lendell had theirs, so I see no problems as they both use inedible starch, in areas not associated with Stanelco's edible starch or each others. Neither have a logo or Standard Character claim so that is rubbish too

It's hard to believe that you didn't see this when looking up Starpol, it would have appeared in your search as it did mine, and you claim to know so much about the patents and trademarks, so we can only assume you just chose to ignore it, prefering to use your one example to put another innacurate negative slant on Stanelco

Erik the Red



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark STARPOL
Goods and Services IC 001. US 001 005 006 010 026 046. G & S: Inedible starch for manufacturing and industrial uses, namely as a component in wall treatments, adhesives, tile mortar, tile grout, oil drilling mud, and other water-holding, thickening, binding, rheology modifying, film forming, suspending, and protective colloid industrial applications. FIRST USE: 19770512. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770512
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 76521364
Filing Date June 9, 2003
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition June 29, 2004
Registration Number 2885921
Registration Date September 21, 2004
Owner (REGISTRANT) A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company CORPORATION DELAWARE 2200 E. Eldorado Street Decatur ILLINOIS 62521
Attorney of Record Robert W. Sacoff
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=t9vo7t.2.1

And the Lendell trademark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark STARPOL
Goods and Services IC 001. US 001 005 006 010 026 046. G & S: Polymer made from Toluene Di-isocyanate and Polyethylene glycol in the form of a viscous fluid for use in the manufacture of health care products. FIRST USE: 20010215. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010215
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number 75868687
Filing Date December 11, 1999
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition October 3, 2000
Registration Number 2502952
Registration Date October 30, 2001
Owner (REGISTRANT) Lendell Manufacturing Inc. CORPORATION MICHIGAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT - NLM 5301 S. GRAHAM ROAD St. Charles MICHIGAN 48655
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=t9vo7t.2.2

Red Erik,

Your post is rather offensive, particularly as this is my particular area of expertise.

If you look at my post again youll see that the other mark you mention (in the name of A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company) was included. It is the first mark listed in my post.

I think you owe me an apology.

More importantly, I didnt say the Lendell mark would necessarily stop Stanelco from using STARPOL. I said

Lendell have exclusive use in the States for the goods they have registered it for.

And

There is a real chance of commercial conflict here, like it or not. It matters not that one starch is inedible and the other edible. There is the real likelihood of confusion between the two - that is all you need for there to be a problem,

I stand by that .You do not know what agreement Lendell have come to with the owners of the other mark - A.E. Staley Manufacturing Company. The two may have agreed to co-exist. This does not mean they will agree to co-exist with SEO, particularly if you look at the LENDELL website where you will see they appear to have extended the scope of the product they are calling STARPOL - see below.

As for putting a negative slant on SEO - I dont see this being a problem even if there is a problem with the pre-existing marks. Stanelco can easily choose another name for the product. This happens all the time. They are not stuck with STARPOL.


StarpolTM
This is our current biodegradable polymer under development. For customers who may need faster degradation qualities of polymer.

Intae him Red

lololol!!!!!!!!

Edited as I called Blinger a 'prat' and then regretted it. Apologies.

its still rubbish, they are in totally different markets

Oblo, Hi :-)

I seem to have unearthed a bit of a hornets nest when I discovered Lendell Starpol yesterday morning.

I appreciate (and respect) your postings clarifying things from a hypothetical point of view. Thank you.

I do find abuse toward you quite unnecessary and offensive.

Rubbish??-I love it Red, that Russian has pretended to be an expert,elsewhere and some believed him, great to see him ousted

Thanks Tony.

Do Russians always talk to themselves?

Oblomov sleeps on then? , not a word of defence.

ROTFFLMFACBH&AO!!!!!!!!!

"Patently" rubbish then?? a real pro. would admit it, er , not likely from this ersatz
one then?

oblomov - 26 Nov 2005 12:48 - 13015 of 13023
Red Erik,

Your post is rather offensive, particularly as this is my particular area of expertise.

lolololol!!!!!!!!!!

i cannot see - anything else - from SE0 coming soon - apart from more BS - more talk of trials - tests - exclusive periods - hopes - dreams - jam tomorrow - what they will not be saying - IMO - is about orders - profits - revenue - company making profits -

it still remains - loss making - still talking jam tomorrow - with the price supported - so far - IMO - by jam tomorrow - hype - spin - RNSs - and not orders - money making deals

the court case is looming - and i see - IMO - a placing to raise money - soon in 2006 - after the award - to BPRG

All IMO - DYOR !!

ii

You are quite a skilled cutter and paster.

There is so little change to any of your posts of mainly hyphens (-) repeated endlessly and interspersed with one to four words.

Is that how you wrote your English exam papers at school or do you do that for the benefit of us children of a lesser God so that we can understand. Or maybe you are a child of a lesser God and that is the only way you can clarify your own thoughts. More than five words without a "-" and you lose the plot and get confused.

There may be a modicum of truth in what you say but you have never substantiated any of them except (excuse me if I am wrong) saying that you have mate who works for a company that knows that Greenseal and Starpol are not performing to expectations. Document it and we might take notice.

Oh, its just dawned on me, the penny has dropped, the light has gone in my head and now I understand. (I was so tempted to use "-"s in the previous sentence but managed to resist it) You are probably short of SEO stock! God I am so clever to have sussed your position and raison d'etre.

The oily one