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

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

Oblomov please take a look at the following list, where Aquasol appears as several live trademarks, because the markets those products are trademarks within, are totally different, just like the market Stanelco is selling Starpol in is EDIBLE starch, whereas the other two Starpol trademarks are for INEDIBLE starch, and within that they are still allowed TWO separate Starpol trademarks, because they are both within separate sub-markets of non-related products.

Also you were claiming 'Starpol 2000' would be impossible too, that is wrong, as 'Aquasol A' and Aquasol E' both exist alongside 'Aquasol'

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 78751355 QUAD FROG TARR LIVE
2 78554347 EZ TAPE TARR LIVE
3 78551102 EZ ZONE TARR LIVE
4 78715457 LIQUIFILM TARR LIVE
5 78696662 EZ WIPES TARR LIVE
6 78696644 BIOSORB TARR LIVE
7 78654183 FROG PACK TARR LIVE
8 78649827 FLOWER FROG TARR LIVE
9 78649810 CRADLE WRAP TARR LIVE
10 78589656 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
11 78470931 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
12 76627427 DESTROY IT TARR LIVE
13 76589720 EZ PURGE TARR LIVE
14 76371708 2671869 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
15 76252526 2681764 AQUADRIL TARR LIVE
16 76002484 2610336 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
17 75784956 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
18 75711485 2403620 AQUABLOC TARR LIVE
19 74663458 AQUASOL SOLAR HEATING SYSTEM FOR POOL & SPA TARR DEAD
20 74533294 1912884 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
21 74412406 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
22 74317486 AQUASOL A TARR DEAD
23 74248117 1759468 AQUASOL WATER PUMP TARR DEAD
24 73378619 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
25 73310563 1248262 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
26 73265864 1218790 AK WA SOL TARR DEAD
27 73150997 1120058 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
28 72394539 0942613 AQUASOL A TARR LIVE
29 72394538 0942612 AQUASOL E TARR LIVE
30 72394537 0940088 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
31 72389286 0955534 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
32 72299123 0873921 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
33 72199525 0788334 AQUASOL TARR LIVE
34 72164958 0774848 AQUASOL TARR DEAD
35 71576674 0547091 AQUASOL A AND D DROPS TARR DEAD
36 71198713 0192050 AQUASOL TARR DEAD

So is it immoral to short a stock now?Is one only allowed to post if one is long?. I have read through the MAM rules but can`t find any clause stating that premise.
Also is sentiment degraded by posting a few hyphens?, again MAM rules seem indeterminate about that one.
Lastly does one have to prove that a share isn`t doing too well when it falls by
-50% ?( that is a minus sign, not a hyphen by the way) in a few months, nope can`t find that in the rules either.
But of course there are other bb`s where the management admit to being long , odd that no shorters are allowed to last long on those organs.
Profit, dividend payments, and a bit of decent PR , usually propel a share, pity this one fails on all fronts.
`Slicks` are just too " yesterday people" in investment .

Red Eric rules this bb on trademark intelligence, depart Russian and sleep off the
beating you have truly deserved.

Red Erik

I'm not willing to debate this with you further. I've posted a realistic assesmment of the situation based on 30 years experience at a high level in the field we are discussing.

What is your professional experience of IP?

If you dont want to believe what I've said, thats up to you. It's no skin off my nose.

oblomov you can claim what you like about experience, but I don't see your claims of difficutly with registering Starpol in the USA as realsistic, because the fact is that there are already two existing Starpol trademarks, and they are both for inedible starch products, so that means they must be allowed because they are for different products within the inedible starch market, and Stanelco's Starpol will therefore be allowed as it is for edible starch, and thus falls totally outside of the inedible starch grouping.

logic beats experience in my book, try looking for the wood amongst the trees

Erik the Red

Red

No offence intended, but you are looking at this from a position of complete ignorance. I already explained in an earlier post why your assumption (that because there are two marks coexisting in different names there will be no problem) was incorrect, so why repeat it?

There is no question of logic here, only knowledge and, again no offence intended, you have no knowledge of the subject.

Answer this - if there is no problem for SEO to obtain registration of the mark in the U.S. why haven't they done it, as they have done in the EU? Would you not expect, with the prominence SEO have given to their ambitions for the U.S. market (Walmart etc) that they would have at least made an application to register the mark if they thought they could get it? There is no such SEO pending application.

I reiterate - you do not know what agreement the existing proprietors of the two STARPOL registrations have with each other.

Please now try to refrain from posting on subjects you obviously have no knowledge or experience of.