Some Novaphos snippets, page-49

The United States Patent and Trademark Office is part of the US Department of Commerce and TESS is the USPTO's own electronic system so if anything is flawed it will be the TESS system and it is likely they will have a disclaimer for users of the system. This does not deny the obligation of both the company and the USPTO to hold records of accuracy regarding any valid trademark or patent.

A bit like saying here in Australia that ASIC may be flawed because the ASIC Connect System doesn't always give the answer you need.

So it could be said with a high degree of surety that Novaphos Inc has no trademark in existence that is current and valid and furthermore nor does it have a current patent or even a patent pending on any process, design or system. What it has was all in the past at best and the convoluted manner in which shareholders of AEV have to go through to get some straight answers on two rather important matters is appalling in itself.

Here is the upside for AEV as a result. No trademark means no contractual restriction on the use of the word Novaphos as you have already provided evidence of in one of your links. AS an aside maybe a contractor from a local competitor to whatever-Novaphos-claim-they-have can slip in under a nondescript engagement like as a project manager or something and propose their own alternative and that can be couched as the saviour of AEV under the current stewardship. I guess that means they could save money and cancel the trip to the US in March.

The better one is the clear absence of a patent and as there is no patent of any form of patent or royalty fee. However what it also means is there is essentially no contract in existence between AEV and Novaphos. Novaphos Inc is essentially owned by a finance house in the US and they would know this only too well as this is where they get value and potential income from.

AEV has nothing to hang its hat on in regards something slick and shiny for production.