Response to Office Action

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020)

---

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. PTO Form 1957 (Rev 10/2011)

OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp 09/20/2020)

Response to Office Action

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:

Application serial no. 88834582 MONARK (Stylized and/or with Design, see http://tmng-al.uspto.gov /resting2/api/img/8883458 2/large) has been amended as follows:

ARGUMENT(S)
In response to the substantive refusal(s), please note the following:

Dear Mr. Kelly, Thank you so much for your letter. Since I am representing myself as the owner of this mark, please bear with me as I try to respond. In terms of the accurate and complete description of the mark, your suggestion is perfect: The mark consists of the stylized wording "MONARK" with a design consisting of overlapping diamond shapes to the left. In terms of the other mark you raised (Monarque) there are large differences in the appearance, connotation and commercial impression after viewing the marks. In terms of the appearance and connotation, the other mark is presented with a butterfly and their original application was for Monarch (like the monarch butterfly). That is the meaning and connotation that they are going for. They use a bright red bubble letter font and a large butterfly symbol next to their name. Our mark is completely different. Our mark, which we have been using since 2014 (which pre-dates the use of their mark) is a combination of the first half of my name (Monica) and the last part of my husband's name (Mark) - - MON and ARK. This is our family business and our mark has a complete different spelling, appearance, look, feel, and connotation. Our logo is always used with the overlapping diamond shapes, is always in black, uses a very modern and minimalistic font and has a very different feel and connotation. Furthermore, we have very different products. Their product line is famous artwork put onto wallets and cases. See below -- their products are reproductions of Van Gogh, O'Keeffe, Klimt, and other masterpieces reprinted onto wallets and cases. Our products are all tempered glass screen protectors, which when put side by side would never be confused -- and in fact would never be put side by side as I will explain further below. Moreover, I looked EVERYWHERE and cannot find a single product in which their mark is actually displayed on the product or even shows packaging with their mark. Our products are NEVER sold or marketed without our mark prominently displayed on the packaging, and in all marketing which further reduces any possible confusion. Furthermore, our products will be sold in Dollar Tree later this year by way of example --- while their products are marketed to a very high end demographic as "fine art" pieces --- they are selling to a totally separate clientele than we do. Therefore, in every aspect -- in terms of the appearance of our marks, the connotation and meaning related to our marks as a whole and the way they are applied to our goods, the commercial impression that a consumer gets when they look at our products and our marks on the products (even though they don't use their mark on the goods as we do), all of these aspects are sufficiently different such that consumers would never be confused that we are the same brand or even possibly related. For these reasons, I would very kindly ask that you allow our mark to proceed. I look forward to your response. With kindest regards, Monica Awadalla
Correspondence Information (current):
      MONICA AWADALLA
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: monica.awadalla@gmail.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED
Correspondence Information (proposed):
      Monica Awadalla
      PRIMARY EMAIL FOR CORRESPONDENCE: monica.awadalla@gmail.com
      SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS(ES) (COURTESY COPIES): NOT PROVIDED

The docket/reference number is 88834582.

Requirement for Email and Electronic Filing: I understand that a valid email address must be maintained by the owner/holder and the owner's/holder's attorney, if appointed, and that all official trademark correspondence must be submitted via the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

SIGNATURE(S)
Response Signature
Signature: /Monica Awadalla/     Date: 06/06/2020
Signatory's Name: Monica Awadalla
Signatory's Position: Owner

Signatory's Phone Number: 7144774118

The signatory has confirmed that he/she is not represented by an authorized attorney, and that he/she is either: (1) the owner/holder; or (2) a person or persons with legal authority to bind the owner/holder; and if he/she had previously been represented by an attorney in this matter, either he/she revoked their power of attorney by filing a signed revocation with the USPTO or the USPTO has granted this attorney's withdrawal request.

Mailing Address:    MONICA AWADALLA
   
   
   11 ELKINS ROAD
   EAST BRUNSWICK, New Jersey 08816
Mailing Address:    Monica Awadalla
   11 Elkins Road
   East Brunswick, New Jersey 08816
        
Serial Number: 88834582
Internet Transmission Date: Sat Jun 06 16:41:31 ET 2020
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/ROA-XX.X.XX.XX-2020060616413102998
9-88834582-7102643e88c3b4fb76b4f43c93e4b
27a8dd1b8cbb23acfde4a5e591477bec3b834-N/
A-N/A-20200606163842634923