Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. https://estta.uspto.gov
`ESTTA1207540
`05/06/2022
`
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`Filing date:
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`92078240
`
`Defendant
`Dreams to Reality Foundation
`
`MOLLY BUCK RICHARD
`RICHARD LAW GROUP
`13355 NOEL RD STE 1350
`DALLAS, TX 75240
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: molly@richardlawgroup.com
`Secondary email(s): docket@richardlawgroup.com
`214-206-4300
`
`Submission
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Yes, the Filer previously made its initial disclosures pursuant to Trademark Rule
`2.120(a); OR the motion for summary judgment is based on claim or issue pre-
`clusion, or lack of jurisdiction.
`
`The deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period as originally set
`or reset: 08/06/2022
`Molly Buck Richard
`
`molly@richardlawgroup.com, docket@richardlawgroup.com
`
`/Molly Buck Richard/
`
`05/06/2022
`
`Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf(192509 bytes )
`Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment.pdf(198407 bytes )
`Declaration of Carmelita Burns.pdf(371943 bytes )
`Declaration of Christopher Matthew Spencer.pdf(2459977 bytes )
`Declaration of Molly Buck Richard.pdf(1304004 bytes )
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dreams to Reality
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`Dreams to Reality Foundation
`
`
` Registrant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Cancellation No. 92078240
` )
` )
` )
`
`REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`
`Registrant, Dreams to Reality Foundation (“Registrant”), hereby moves the Trademark
`
`Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) for
`
`summary judgment in this proceeding. A Memorandum in Support of Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment, the Declaration of Christopher Matthew Spencer (“Spencer Decl.”), the
`
`Declaration of Carmelita Burns (“Burns Decl.”), and the Declaration of Molly Buck Richard
`
`(“Richard Decl.”) are being filed concurrently herewith, along with any respective exhibits. In
`
`addition, pursuant to T.B.M.P. § 528.03 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.127(d), Registrant requests that the
`
`Board suspend all deadlines pending a decision on this motion.
`
`This motion is based on the lack of any genuine issues of material fact regarding
`
`Registrant’s prior use of the DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION mark (“Registrant’s
`
`Mark”) and likelihood of confusion between Registrant’s Mark and Dreams to Reality
`
`(“Petitioner”) DREAMS TO REALITY (“Petitioner’s Mark”). With regard to priority of use,
`
`Registrant has continuously used Registrant’s Mark since at least as early as May of 1993. On the
`
`other hand, Petitioner only started to use Petitioner’s Mark in 2000. As such, Registrant is the
`
`senior and prior user of the DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION mark. Petitioner also
`
`REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Page 1
`
`

`

`asserts a likelihood of confusion with Registrant’s Mark, however, Petitioner has acknowledged
`
`that there is no likelihood of confusion.
`
`Accordingly, Registrant respectfully submits that a grant of summary judgment on the basis
`
`of its clear priority of use and lack of likelihood of confusion in this proceeding is appropriate, and
`
`requests that the Board enter such judgment in favor of Registrant and deny the Petition for
`
`Cancellation of Registrant’s Mark. Petitioner also requests that the Board suspend all deadlines
`
`pending the Board’s decision on this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RICHARD LAW GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Molly Buck Richard/
`Molly Buck Richard
`13355 Noel Road, Suite 1350
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`214-206-4300 (Phone)
`214-206-4330 (Fax)
`molly@richardlawgroup.com
`
`Attorneys for Registrant Dreams to
`Reality Foundation
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on May 6, 2022, the foregoing document was served upon Petitioner
`
` through its counsel of record, Annette Heller, via email to tmattorneyheller@aol.com.
`
`___/Molly Buck Richard/________
`
`
`
`REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT – Page 2
`
`

`

`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dreams to Reality
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner
`
`
`
`v.
`Dreams to Reality Foundation
`
`
` Registrant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Cancellation No. 92078240
` )
` )
` )
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION
`FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioner Dreams to Reality (“Petitioner”), brought this proceeding to cancel Registrant
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation (“Registrant”) DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION
`
`(“Registrant’s Mark”) based on Petitioner’s alleged prior common law rights in the DREAMS TO
`
`REALITY mark (“Petitioner’s Mark”). In the Petition for Cancellation, Petitioner asserted that it
`
`used Petitioner’s Mark since at least as early as 2000, “long before the filing date of Registrant’s
`
`Application” (TTABVUE 1, para. 4) and that “Registrant’s Mark, when used in connection with
`
`its services, so resembles Petitioner’s Mark as to be likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or
`
`to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Registrant with Petitioner, or as to the
`
`origin, sponsorship, or approval of Registrant’s services by Petitioner.” (TTABVUE 1, para. 10).
`
`There are no genuine issues of material fact as to priority or likelihood of confusion. As
`
`discussed in detail below, Registrant began using Registrant’s Mark in May of 1993, some seven
`
`(7) years prior to any date relied upon by Petitioner for the use of Petitioner’s Mark. Thus, there
`
`is no issue as to priority.
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 1
`
`
`

`

`It is also undisputed that Petitioner cannot establish a likelihood of confusion and in fact,
`
`has admitted that there is not likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, a grant of summary judgment
`
`for Registrant is appropriate in this instance and Registrant respectfully requests that the Board
`
`dismiss the Petition to Cancel. In addition, pursuant to T.B.M.P. § 528.03 and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`2.127(d), Registrant requests that the Board suspend all deadlines pending a decision on this
`
`motion. Registrant’s motion is also supported by the Declaration of Christopher Matthew Spencer
`
`(“Spencer Decl.”) and the Declaration of Carmelita Burns (“Burns Decl.”). The Spencer Decl. and
`
`Burns Decl. are filed concurrently with this memorandum.
`
`II.
`
`UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Registrant is the owner of Reg. No. 5067798 for the mark DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`FOUNDATION which was filed on March 16, 2016 and issued on October 25, 2016 (“Registrant’s
`
`Registration”) for the following services: “Charitable foundation services, namely, providing
`
`financial support to people in need, who may include, but are not limited to, the homeless, families,
`
`the vulnerable, victims of circumstance, victims of crimes, veterans, youth, and others, for general
`
`relief, food, shelter, scholarships, education, and other financial, and volunteer assistance” in
`
`International Class 36. (“Registrant’s Services”). Petitioner claims to be the owner of the mark
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY (“Petitioner’s Mark”) in connection with the following services:
`
`“Charitable services for providing clothing to woman in transition and operating a resale shop to
`
`support its charitable work” for which it claims use since 2000. TTABVUE 1, para. 4.
`
`2.
`
`Petitioner bases its Petition to Cancel on its alleged prior use of Petitioner’s Mark
`
`since 2000 which predates the filing date of Registrant’s Registration on March 16, 2016.
`
`TTABVUE 1, para. 9. Additionally, Petitioner claims that there is a likelihood of confusion
`
`between Registrant’s Mark and Petitioner’s Mark. TTABVUE 1, para. 10.
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 2
`
`
`

`

`3.
`
`Petitioner acknowledges that its date of first use for DREAMS TO REALITY is
`
`not prior to the year 2000. Richard Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`4.
`
`Registrant was formed as DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION in 1993, filing
`
`the articles of incorporation with the California Secretary of State’s office in August of 1993.
`
`Spencer Decl. ¶ 3 and Exhibit A thereto.
`
`5.
`
`Registrant has continuously used the DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION
`
`trademark from 1993 to the present. Spencer Decl. ¶ 15.
`
`6.
`
`On June 4, 1999, DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION began actively selling
`
`on eBay, a global ecommerce marketplace that reaches 195 countries. Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation’s eBay stores receive hundreds of millions of global impressions each year. Dreams
`
`to Reality Foundation continues to operate ten eBay Stores to this day. Spencer Decl. ¶ 8.
`
`7.
`
`In 1995, Kaiser Permanente selected Dreams to Reality Foundation as a preferred
`
`nonprofit partner and developed an internationally publicized educational theater program for
`
`schools entitled Secrets and Letters. The program consisted of actors who portrayed lifestyle
`
`situations and scenes with life lessons; with a focus on HIV/AIDS awareness. The project involved
`
`asking children all over the world to submit letters talking about their personal experiences
`
`surrounding the HIV/AIDS epidemic at that time. These letters were then read by famous actors
`
`including Academy Award-winner Shirley Jones, Tatyana Ali, Michelle Stafford, Kathy Najimy
`
`and other notable stars. According to Kaiser Permanente, the educational theater program served
`
`at least 8.6 million individuals. Spencer Decl. ¶ 7.
`
`8.
`
`Since 1993, Carmelita Burns has consigned merchandise to Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation for resale and restored and repaired goods sent to her from Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation for resale. Additionally, beginning in 1999 and continuing to the present, Ms. Burns
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 3
`
`
`

`

`has consigned merchandise to Dreams to Reality Foundation for resale on eBay and restored and
`
`repaired goods sent to her from Dreams to Reality Foundation for resale on eBay. See Burns Decl.
`
`9.
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation’s activities have been mentioned on national news
`
`media, including on the television show Geraldo. See Burns Decl. and Spencer Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`10.
`
`Registrant filed this motion for summary judgment before the August 6, 2022
`
`deadline for pretrial disclosures for the first testimony period. TTABVUE 2.
`
`11.
`
`Petitioner has admitted that if Registrant used the mark DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`FOUNDATION prior to the first use of any DREAMS TO REALITY mark of Petitioner,
`
`Petitioner will not be able to establish priority of use. Richard Decl. ¶ 5.
`
`12.
`
`Petitioner has admitted that there is no likelihood of confusion between Registrant’s
`
`mark DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION for Registrant’s services and Petitioner’s
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY mark for Petitioner’s services. Richard Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`13.
`
`Petitioner has admitted that Petitioner does not claim that there is a likelihood of
`
`confusion between Registrant’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION and Petitioner’s
`
`mark DREAMS TO REALITY. Richard Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`14.
`
`Petitioner has admitted that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION and DREAMS TO REALITY. Richard Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`III. THE STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`AND BURDEN OF PROOF
`
`Summary judgment should be granted, where, as here, it is shown that there is no genuine
`
`issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Federal Rule
`
`of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 56(c). These general principles of summary judgment apply under
`
`FRCP 56 to proceedings before the Board. See, e.g., Sweats Fashions, Inc. v. Pannill Knitting Co.,
`
`833 F.2d 1560, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1793, 1797 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, summary judgment is an
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 4
`
`
`

`

`appropriate method of disposing of an opposition or cancellation proceeding in which there is no
`
`genuine issue of material fact on the question of likelihood of confusion. Kellogg Co. v. Pack’Em
`
`Enters, Inc., 14 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (T.T.A.B. 1990). As the Federal Circuit stated in Pure Gold, Inc.
`
`v. Syntex (U.S.A.), Inc., 739 F.2d 624, 222 U.S.P.Q. 741, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1984): The basic purpose
`
`of summary judgment procedure is one of judicial economy – to save the time and expense of a
`
`full trial when it is unnecessary because the essential facts necessary to decision of the issue can
`
`be adequately developed by less costly procedures, as contemplated by the FRCP rules here
`
`involved, with a net benefit to society. (Citation omitted). Likewise, summary judgment in an
`
`opposition or cancellation proceeding is designed to save the time and expense of a full opposition
`
`or cancellation proceeding where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Bet Lock Corp.
`
`v. Schlage Lock Co., 413 F.2d 1195, 162 U.S.P.Q. 552 (C.C.P.A. 1969). Registrant, as the moving
`
`party, has the burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to summary judgment. Celotex Corp.
`
`v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324-25 (1986). By meeting their burden of identifying undisputed facts,
`
`Registrant is entitled to relief. Petitioner cannot respond merely by pointing to allegations or
`
`denials in the pleadings. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
`
`(1986). Instead, Petitioner must submit specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.
`
`Id. at 587. In doing so, Petitioner must present evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact might
`
`return a verdict in its favor. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986). As there
`
`are no genuine issues of material fact, summary judgment in favor of Registrant is appropriate.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE OF MATERIAL
`FACT THAT REGISTRANT HAS PRIORITY OF USE
`
`
`
`Petitioner claims that because it first used its mark in 2000, six years prior to the registration
`
`date of the mark DREAMS FOR REALITY FOUNDATION, that it has priority of use. However,
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 5
`
`
`

`

`the undisputed summary judgment evidence establishes conclusively that Registrant has
`
`continuously used its mark since 1993, well before Petitioner’s claimed date of first use within
`
`each of the states in the United States and indeed globally. See Spencer Decl. and Burns Decl.
`
`As noted in the Richard Decl., Registrant served its Second Set of Requests for Admission
`
`on March 28, 2022 and Petitioner failed to respond to the discovery requests. As a result, the
`
`Requests for Admission are deemed admitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`36(a)(3) provides that requests for admissions are deemed admitted unless written answers or
`
`objections thereto are received by the requesting party within thirty days of service of the requests.
`
`In this case, Petitioner did not make any attempt to submit either its answers or objections to
`
`Registrant.
`
`The effect of these admissions is that Petitioner has admitted (1) “if Registrant used the
`
`mark DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION prior to the first use of any DREAMS TO
`
`REALITY mark of Petitioner, Petitioner will not be able to establish priority of use.” Richard Decl.
`
`¶ 6; (2) “there is no likelihood of confusion between Registrant’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`FOUNDATION for Registrant’s services and Petitioner’s DREAMS TO REALITY mark for
`
`Petitioner’s services.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6; (3); “Petitioner does not claim that there is a likelihood
`
`of confusion between Registrant’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION and
`
`Petitioner’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6; and (4) “there is no likelihood of
`
`confusion between the marks DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION and DREAMS TO
`
`REALITY.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`Thus, Petitioner has admitted that if Registrant used its mark prior to Petitioner’s first use
`
`of its mark, Petitioner will not be able to establish priority, there is no likelihood of confusion
`
`between Registrant’s mark for its services and Petitioner’s mark for its services, Petitioner does
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 6
`
`
`

`

`not claim that there is a likelihood of confusion between the parties’ marks, and there is no
`
`likelihood of confusion between the marks DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION and
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY.
`
`
`
`In serving requests for admission, a party asks its adversary to stipulate to certain matters
`
`as a means of reducing issues for trial. See TBMP § 407.02. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) requires that the
`
`answering party admit or deny the matter set forth in the requests for admission or detail the
`
`reasons why the party can do neither. An admission in response to a request for admission
`
`conclusively establishes the matter that is the subject of that request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b). “This
`
`conclusive effect applies to those admissions made affirmatively and those established by default,
`
`even if the matters admitted relate to material facts that defeat a party’s claim.” American
`
`Automobile Ass’n v. AAA Legal Clinic of Jefferson Crooke, P.C., 930 F.2d 1117, 19 USPQ2d 1142,
`
`1144 (5th Cir. 1991)(citing United States v. Kasuboski, 834 F.2d 1345, 1350 (7th Cir. 1987);
`
`Rainbolt v. Johnson, 669 F.2d 767, 769 (D.C.Cir. 1981); Brook Village North Assocs. v. General
`
`Electric Co., 686 F.2d 66, 70 (1st Cir. 1982)); see Fram Trak Indus. Inc. v. WireTracks LLC, 77
`
`USPQ2d 2000, 2005 (TTAB 2006)(“Respondent failed to respond to petitioner’s requests for
`
`admission and failed to file a motion to amend or withdraw those admissions. Accordingly, those
`
`requests for admission are deemed admitted and conclusively established.”).
`
`
`
`As a result of Petitioner’s failure to respond to the Second Set of Requests for Admission,
`
`they are deemed admitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(3) and TBMP 407.03(a). In addition to the
`
`admissions made by Petitioner, Registrant has conclusively established its continuous use of its
`
`mark DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION since 1993, well prior to Petitioner’s claimed first
`
`use of 2000. Thus, summary judgment should be granted on the issue of priority.
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 7
`
`
`

`

`THERE IS NO LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
`
`
`
`In order for Petitioner to prevail in this cancellation proceeding, it must first establish
`
`priority of use and then likelihood of confusion. TBMP 309.03 (c)(2). Because Petitioner cannot
`
`establish priority of use, its likelihood of confusion claim under Section 2(d) fails. RxD Media,
`
`LLC v. IP Application Development LLC 125 USPQ2d 1801 (TTAB 2018). As noted above,
`
`Petitioner cannot establish prior use as Registrant has conclusively established its use of the mark
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION as of 1993 and continuing to the present. As such,
`
`summary judgment should be issued for Registrant on likelihood of confusion.
`
`Petitioner has admitted that it does not claim there is a likelihood of confusion. In response
`
`to Interrogatory No. 15, when asked if Petitioner claimed there was a likelihood of confusion
`
`between the parties’ marks, Petitioner answered “No due to the type of services offered by
`
`Petitioner.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6. Additionally, based on the deemed admissions for Registrant’s
`
`Second Set of Requests for Admission, Petitioner has admitted the following with respect to
`
`likelihood of confusion: (1) “there is no likelihood of confusion between Registrant’s mark
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION for Registrant’s services and Petitioner’s DREAMS
`
`TO REALITY mark for Petitioner’s services.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6; (2) “Petitioner does not claim
`
`that there is a likelihood of confusion between Registrant’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`FOUNDATION and Petitioner’s mark DREAMS TO REALITY.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6; and (3)
`
`“there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION
`
`and DREAMS TO REALITY.” Richard Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`As the Board held in Moke America LLC v. Moke USA, LLC 2020 USPQ2d 10400 (TTAB
`
`2020):
`
`“Prior use is a necessary element of any claim of likelihood of confusion under Section
`2(d) of the Trademark Act. We need not reach the merits of the likelihood of confusion
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 8
`
`
`

`

`claim because without proof of priority, Opposer cannot prevail. See Life Zone Inc. v.
`Middleman Grp., Inc., 87 USPQ2d 1953, 1960 (TTAB 2008); see also Exec. Coach
`Builders, Inc. v. SPV Coach Co., 123 USPQ2d 1175, 1199 (TTAB 2017).”
`
`WHEREFORE, Registrant respectfully requests that the Board grant summary judgment
`
`in favor of Registrant and dismiss this cancellation proceeding.
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`RICHARD LAW GROUP, INC.
`
`/Molly Buck Richard/
`Molly Buck Richard
`13355 Noel Road, Suite 1350
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`Telephone: (214) 206-4300
`Facsimile: (214) 206-4330
`molly@richardlawgroup.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Dreams to Reality
`Foundation
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I hereby certify that on May 6, 2022, a true and complete copy of Defendant’s
`
`Memorandum In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and Declarations and Exhibits were
`served upon Annette Heller, counsel for Plaintiff via email to tmattorneyheller@aol.com.
`
`
`/Molly Buck Richard/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF REGISTRANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Page 9
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE
`
`THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY
`FOUNDATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92078240
`
`Reg. No. 5067798
`
`
`Mark: DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`
`FOUNDATION
`
`DECLARATION OF CARMELITA BURNS UNDER 37 C.F.R. §2.20
`
`I, Carmelita Burns make this declaration on behalf of the Defendant,
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation, in the above referenced matter. I have personal
`
`knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration.
`
`I am a resident of Niangua which is a city located in Webster County,
`
`Missouri. I am in the business of manufacturing jewelry; and repairing and
`
`restoring jewelry, antiques and collectibles. I have been in this occupation for
`
`the past four decades.
`
`I was
`
`introduced to Dreams to Reality Foundation’s co-founder
`
`Christopher Matthew Spencer in 1985 through a mutual business associate
`
`and Beverly Hills antique dealer, Mike Richards.
`
`Mr. Spencer co-founded Dreams to Reality Foundation in 1993 and at
`
`that time, invited me to become a vendor of the Dreams to Reality Foundation’s
`
`fundraising program in which donated items are evaluated, restored, repaired
`
`

`

`and resold on ecommerce sites including eBay. Later on those sites included
`Etsy, Facebook, Craigslist and Shopify.
`From at least 1993 to the present, I consigned merchandise to Dreams to
`Reality Foundation for resale and restored and repaired goods sent to me by
`Dreams to Reality Foundation for resale.
`As early as 1999 and continuing until
`the present,
`I consigned
`merchandise to Dreams to Reality Foundation for resale on eBay and restored
`and repaired goods sent to me by Dreams to Reality Foundation for resale on
`eBay.
`
`I became aware of Dreams to Reality Foundation’s
`As early as 1994,
`activities being mentioned on national news media including Dreams to Reality
`Foundation being featured on Geraldo, an internationally syndicated-talk show
`hosted by Geraldo Rivera
`The undersigned being hereby warned that willful false statements and
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18
`U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize
`the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting
`therefrom, declares that all statements made of her own knowledge are true;
`and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`_, 2022.
`M01142; fiat/(M
`
`Dated thisii day of
`
`i
`
`CKRMELITA BURNS
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE
`
`THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`DREAMS TO REALITY
`FOUNDATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
` §
`
`
`
`Cancellation No. 92078240
`
`Reg. No. 5067798
`
`
`Mark: DREAMS TO REALITY
`
`
`FOUNDATION
`
`DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW SPENCER
`UNDER 37 C.F.R. §2.20
`
`I, Christopher Matthew Spencer make this declaration on behalf of the
`
`Defendant, Dreams to Reality Foundation, in the above referenced matter. I
`
`have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Declaration.
`
`1. I am a resident of Burbank which is a city located in Los Angeles
`
`County, California.
`
`2. In 1993, I worked in the entertainment industry as a management
`
`executive for celebrity actors and musicians. I represented Dean
`
`Butler as his management executive at that time. Dean Butler is an
`
`actor best known to audiences for his portrayal of Almanzo Wilder
`
`from 1979 to 1983 on the pioneer television drama, Little House on
`
`the Prairie. He portrayed Moondoggie in the syndicated television
`
`comedy series The New Gidget from 1986 to 1988, and Buffy's dad,
`
`Hank Summers, on Buffy the Vampire Slayer from 1997 to 2003. On
`
`Broadway Dean played Rapunzal's Prince in the original company of
`
`

`

`
`
`Into the Woods, toured internationally as Tony in West Side Story, and
`
`appeared with Carol Burnett in a production of Company.
`
`3. Mr. Butler and I share a strong interest in philanthropy, and we met
`
`for a brainstorming session in May of 1993 at which time we came up
`
`with the idea to start a nonprofit foundation to help individuals in
`
`need globally. Mr. Butler and I agreed to utilize his television and
`
`Broadway fame to attract sponsors, support, and other celebrities to
`
`help as many people as possible.
`
`4. Mr. Butler and I decided on the name for this organization and
`
`founded Dreams to Reality Foundation on May 25, 1993, filed
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation’s articles of incorporation with the
`
`State of California on August 13, 1993 (Exhibit A), and applied for tax
`
`exemption with the Internal Revenue Service under 501(c)(3) of the
`
`Revenue Code on September 1, 1993 (Exhibit B) which the Internal
`
`Revenue Service granted in November 1993 (Exhibit C). The California
`
`Franchise Tax Board granted tax exempt status to Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation on August 13, 1993 (Exhibit D).
`
`5. English composer Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber, winner of Tony Awards,
`
`Grammy Awards, an Academy Award and a Golden Globe award;
`
`partnered with Dreams to Reality Foundation, Dean Butler and me to
`
`produce the Los Angeles performances of the worldwide hit musical
`
`production of Evita held at the Wilshire Ebell Theatre on October 22-
`
`24, 1993. Michelle Pfeiffer and her husband producer David E. Kelley
`
`attended the opening night performance in an official arrangement by
`
`Hollywood Pictures so that Ms. Pfeiffer could conduct research for the
`
`

`

`
`
`role of Eva Peron in anticipation of her consideration to star in the
`
`film adaptation of Evita.
`
`6. Dreams to Reality Foundation responded to the 1994 Northridge
`
`earthquake by holding an internationally publicized fundraiser in
`
`partnership with Paramount Studios that was authorized and
`
`attended by Paramount Studios then-president Sherry Lansing. Sam
`
`Haskell of William Morris Agency served as the celebrity talent broker
`
`for the fundraiser. Mr. Haskell arranged for the personal appearances
`
`of many world-renown celebrities to participate in the internationally
`
`publicized Achey Quakey benefit with 100% of the proceeds
`
`benefitting Dreams to Reality Foundation. Mr. Haskell’s clients who
`
`participated included Helen Hunt, Tyne Daly, Meshach Taylor,
`
`Gregory Harrison, Carol Channing, Bruce Davison, Debby Boone,
`
`Stephanie Zimbalist and Stephanie Powers (Exhibit F). The Achey
`
`Quakey benefit was
`
`featured on Geraldo, an
`
`internationally
`
`syndicated talk show hosted by Geraldo Rivera which brought
`
`awareness of Dreams to Reality Foundation to all 50 states within the
`
`US as well as many countries within which Geraldo was syndicated.
`
`7. Kaiser Permanente is an integrated managed care consortium
`
`operating since July 21, 1945 across the United States employs more
`
`than 300,000 workers including more than 63,000 nurses and more
`
`than 23,000 physicians. In 1995, Kaiser Permanente selected Dreams
`
`to Reality Foundation as a preferred nonprofit partner and developed
`
`an internationally publicized educational theater program for schools
`
`entitled Secrets and Letters. The program consisted of actors who
`
`

`

`
`
`portrayed lifestyle situations and scenes with life lessons; with a
`
`focus on HIV/AIDS awareness. The project involved asking children
`
`all over the world to submit letters talking about their personal
`
`experiences surrounding the HIV/AIDS epidemic at that time. These
`
`letters were then read by famous actors including Academy Award-
`
`winner Shirley Jones, Tatyana Ali, Michelle Stafford, Kathy Najimy
`
`and other notable stars. According to Kaiser Permanente, the
`
`educational theater program served at least 8.6 million individuals.
`
`8. On June 4, 1999, Dreams to Reality Foundation began actively selling
`
`on eBay, a global ecommerce marketplace that reaches 195 countries.
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation’s eBay stores receive hundreds of
`
`millions of global
`
`impressions each year. Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation continues to operate ten eBay Stores to this day.
`
`9. Dreams to Reality Foundation also actively sells donated goods under
`
`its Mark on Craigslist, Etsy, Facebook and Shopify; each of which has
`
`exposure to every country with audiences in the millions (for
`
`Facebook, in the billions).
`
`10. Between 2000 and 2007, representatives of Dreams to Reality
`
`Foundation spoke at internationally promoted events for nonprofit
`
`leaders organized by The Points of Light Institute.
`
`11. As Dreams to Reality Foundation’s co-founder, I have spoken at over
`
`200 tradeshows, roadshows and keynotes in which I discussed
`
`Dreams to Reality Foundation in all 50 states.
`
`

`

`
`
`12. In 2007, Dreams to Reality Foundation was selected by eBay to be the
`
`recipient nonprofit organization in connection with their national
`
`Winnervators road show starring Andy Richter and Paul F. Tomkins.
`
`13. In 2009, seven-time Grammy nominated The Killers rock band
`
`partnered with Dreams to Reality Foundation for a globally promoted
`
`auction campaign.
`
`14. In 2010, Children’s Miracle Network Hospitals partnered with Dreams
`
`to Reality Foundation on national fundraising activities. At the time,
`
`Children’s Miracle Network Hospitals operated the largest telethon in
`
`the world.
`
`15. In 2016, five-time Grammy Award-winner Janet Jackson partnered
`
`with Dreams to Reality Foundation for a globally promoted online
`
`auction campaign.
`
`16. In 2016, Kathy Ireland partnered with Dreams to Reality Foundation
`
`for a globally promoted online auction campaign in an official co-
`
`partnership with The Walt Disney Company.
`
`17. At any one time, Dreams to Reality Foundation has, on aggregate,
`
`more than 18,000 product ads running in 195 countries online in all
`
`of the ecommerce stores it operates.
`
`18. Dreams to Reality Foundation has been continuously using its Mark
`
`from 1993 to the present day.
`
`The undersigned being hereby warned that willful false statements and
`
`the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18
`
`U.S.C. 1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize
`
`the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting
`
`

`

`
`
`therefrom, declares that all statements made of her own knowledge are true;
`
`and all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`Dated this 5th day of May, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________________
`CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW SPENCER
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`QF
`DREAMS TO REALITY FOUNDATION
`
`ONE: The name ofthis corporation is Dreams to Reality Foundation.
`
`TWO: This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit carporation and is not
`organized for the private gain of any person. It is orga