Exact trademark owner identified
USPTO lists DPL Trading, Inc. (CORPORATION) in California, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product.
The useful read · Micro Ingredients
Micro Ingredients Organic Spirulina Chlorella Mini Tablets
USPTO names DPL Trading, Inc. as the brand owner.
Rebuilt from public sources on July 22, 2026 · evidence availability is not a safety or effectiveness verdict.
What this means for you · The useful read
What the public record can establish
USPTO lists DPL Trading, Inc. (CORPORATION) in California, USA for the exact brand wordmark. This identifies the USPTO mark owner or applicant; it does not by itself prove who manufactures or sells this product…
Panel, decoded
What the label discloses
2declared rows
2separately quantified
0combined blend totals
The listing-image panel publishes an amount for each of its 2 declared rows. That supports ingredient-by-ingredient review; it does not verify the contents.
| Panel row | Amount | %DV | What to notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organic Spirulina (Arthrospira platensis) | 1 g g | — | |
| Organic Chlorella (Chlorella vulgaris) | 1 g g | — |
FDA rules (21 CFR 101.36) require the amount of each dietary ingredient per serving unless hidden in a declared “proprietary blend” (legal, but a transparency yellow flag). A label stating no amount at all is non-compliant — a checkable red flag. This panel states amounts; the open question is whether those declared amounts are independently verified and how they compare with relevant research.
vision:google/gemini-flash-1.5 Amounts are shown as declared panel data, not independently lab-tested contents.
Public ownership record
🇺🇸
DPL Trading, Inc.Corporation · exact mark owner for MICRO INGREDIENTS
4951 Holt Blvd, Suite A, Montclair, California 91763, UNITED STATES
Filed address
4951 Holt Blvd, Suite A, Montclair, California 91763, UNITED STATES
This is the USPTO owner of the brand wordmark. It tells a shopper who is behind the brand, but does not by itself identify the manufacturer or prove where this product was made.
What would settle the biggest open question?
Can the testing claim be tied to a named laboratory and this product lot? Evidence that would settle it: lot-specific COA naming the laboratory and matching the product lot.
Open the full evidence trailSources, edge cases, and every unresolved check
Confirmed evidence
What checked out01
These checks found support in the public record. They confirm specific facts, not the product as a whole.
Confirmed
Documented concerns
What needs caution00
These are documented contradictions or claims that need more evidence. They are separate from missing data.
No contradictions or product-specific cautions were found at this check depth.
Unresolved public record
What is still missing05
We looked for these signals but could not settle them from public sources. A gap is not a strike.
Review-count history: not available
Marketplace rating not shown★ — rating count unavailable. No exact-listing count history was available, so no review-pattern claim is made.
“Lab tested” claimed, but no lab or report named
The listing claims third-party testing without naming any lab or certifier, so the claim can't be verified as stated.
Listed amounts fit the serving
Technical check only: the panel’s 2 actives sum to 2,000 mg, which fits inside the ≈2,000 mg serving. This means the numbers are physically possible — it does not mean the formula was validated or the contents confirmed.
No label filed with NIH's public catalog
The NIH Dietary Supplement Label Database has no matching label yet. Ingestion lags the market — recorded as a gap, not a strike.
UPC valid, no independent record
Check digit passes; no third-party database record found yet. Coverage gaps are common — not a strike.
What to ask and check
What would settle the open questions
Why is this shown?
Everything we couldn’t verify is something a person can still ask about. Rather than leave gaps sitting as dead ends, we turn each one into a specific question — the exact document, citation, or number that would settle it — plus the things you can confirm yourself with the bottle in your hand.
Ask the brand or seller
1
Can you send the certificate of analysis (COA) for the lot number on my bottle?
A real COA names the testing laboratory, the test date, the lot it covers, and what was measured. “Third-party tested” with no document behind it is a marketing sentence.
2
Is this label filed with NIH’s Dietary Supplement Label Database (DSLD)?
Filing is voluntary, so absence proves nothing — but a filed label puts the full ingredient table on public record where anyone can read it.
Most brands and sellers publish a contact route. A clear answer adds evidence to the record; no answer leaves the question open.
Check for yourself — no one’s permission needed
1
Compare the panel on the bottle in your hand to the one shown in this record.
Ours was read from listing photos and can contain reading errors. The physical label is the source of truth — if they disagree, tell us and we’ll correct the record.
2
Scan the barcode on the package and confirm it reads 850074438083.
A mismatch between the barcode on the box and the one on the listing is worth pausing over — it can indicate a different variant, a repack, or a counterfeit.
3
Check the lot number and expiry on the bottle against any COA you’re given.
A certificate that doesn’t name your lot doesn’t describe what you’re holding.
These are the open questions on this specific record — not a warning about the product, and not a suggestion to buy or avoid it. Getting them answered is how you decide for yourself.
Record built July 22, 2026. Sources: source listing observed at check time · USPTO Trademark Search · Keepa exact-listing history · NIH / published research · certification and regulator records where available. LookCloser publishes evidence and gaps; it does not advise for or against any supplement. Evidence-based corrections welcome.