::I am working, I hope, with a new editor so I am being a little nice and not so much a sweeney todd as perhaps I would be otherwise. I don't want to daunt the new editor with stacks of stuff at the top. 

 ::In my opinion, although they are trade sources, what else isn't? If you get stats for a football team it would be from the football league, i.e. essentially a trade source. If you get a list of people who appeared in a film or on telly, you get it from Equity or the PRS, i.e. a trade source. 

 ::There has been a continuing to-and-fro at various discussion boards about whether trade sources are RS etc; these are at least secondary sources because it is not as if the article mentions their products. The trade names I used in the lede I had actually taken out in the first place as product placement, but decided to re-insert them as they seem to be widely used in the trade, this is simply tmo help the chances of a reader being able to find the article they are interested in and is why I don't put the trademark symbols etc in the lede, but if the trade calls them that, it calls them that. 

 ::The trade sources I added seem to be fairly neutral, i.e. of course they are advertising their product but not overtly so, it is not as if they are smacking it all over Wikipedia (which is what the assertion of "QPQ is a registered trademark of [company]" was doing four days ago). I just think if you want to know the ride, go to the horse's mouth. These are reliable, secondary sources in my opinion.