Davison Design & Development, Inc.

Review: 230+ complaints in last 3 years, 200+ complaints regarding Products / Services, what has to be done to end this madness? This company has been in trouble in the past for what seems to be the same types of issues still going on today.

Our saga with Davison started in 2009 and is on-going today. After successfully securing US Patent #US [redacted] on November 8th, 2008, we engaged with Davison in 2009 to assist us with marketing the patent/concept to potential manufacturers. At the time, we had a fully functional prototype (see [redacted] ), video of it working, and positive feedback from all who saw it. Davison convinced us our prototype was not good enough, and they had to create a new one that was more prepared for manufacturing, this of course came with a cost of ~$9,220.

Their prototype was completed in 2009 and we were charged another ~$400 x 2 to create two boxes to ship the prototype to two potential companies; shipments that never occurred. In 2010 we questioned what was going on and were given a run around. We asked that the prototype be shipped to us in Florida so we could ensure it worked, but they could not ship it as it was “too awkward and costly to package”? Really? No activity occurred the remainder of 2010. So, in 2011 my father drove from Allentown, PA to Pittsburgh, PA to pick it up and drive it to me in Florida where it was tested and it failed miserably. We have a video of it in a pool, with an 8 year old on it and it sank like an anchor.

Following the failed testing of the prototype their educated engineers created with high tech equipment, (remember, we had a working prototype from the start that was made in a shed without high tech equipment), we wrote the President and Licensing Coordinator requesting a refund, see attached. A phone call ensued and the President assured me they would make things right at no additional cost to us. So, a year later, in 2012 they developed a second prototype and sent us a video of it working, not nearly as well as the one we initially created in 2008.

Since 2012, we have had no further activity. We have been working with them since 2009 and not one company has yet had the opportunity to review it. So, basically we paid them to create a prototype that is no comparison to what we had to start, all we wanted was help finding a manufacturer. We are in to Davison for a grand total of $18,220. DON’T DO IT PEOPLE – find a better, more ethical company to work with. Don’t make the same mistake me and apparently lots of other folks have. This is most likely a lost cause but after seeing all the current, similar, complaints; I figured I would add our saga to the mix. If anyone is pursuing legal action, count us in, Corporations should not be permitted to take advantage of hard working Americans this way.Desired Settlement: A refund, or delivery of a manufacturer.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 01/26/2015. At the outsetit should be clarified that Mr. [redacted]’s project was actually submitted as ajoint project, theother individual being Mr. [redacted]l. As will be detailed below, each step of thedevelopment and presentation process was conducted with the express written approval andauthorization of both Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]l.We understand that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative whenoperating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hardto troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s product sample, we try to maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing ourservices and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval and authorization throughout theprocess. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensed. This appears to be the case in Mr. [redacted]’ssituation.His complaint contains numerous false and defamatory statements. He alleges there hasbeen no activity on his project since 2012 this is false. We continued to work with him through2013. He authorized a presentation of the project in February 2013, and the presentation wasmade in April 2013. Our last contact with him was on December 02, 2013. He alleges “not onecompany has yet had the opportunity to review” his project this is false. He specificallyauthorized, in writing, three presentations of his project. All three presentations were made,however no corporation chose to license the product idea. Finally, his post completely ignoresthe fact that each step of the process was performed with his express written approval andauthorization. He even completed questionnaires in which he provided positive feedback.On 02/09 2009 Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]l entered an agreement for the designand construction of a product sample. A proposed design was prepared and submitted for theirapproval. They approved the product sample design in July 2009 and completed a questionnaireabout the design providing positive feedback. Based upon this approval, the physical productsample was constructed and presentation materials prepared. The presentation material, in theform of an Executive Briefing, which included an actual photograph of the constructed productsample, was provided to them. On 10/30/2009, they authorized, in writing, the presentation of theproduct sample to a corporation and completed a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing inwhich they provided positive feedback. The product idea was presented; unfortunately, thecorporation chose not to license the product idea. At their express direction, a secondpresentation was made to a second corporation, who again chose not to license the idea. Asnoted in the complaint, the product sample was re-designed following concerns they hadexpressed. This re-design was performed at no cost to the clients. They approved the re-designedsample in November 2012. Presentation materials were again created and they authorized a thirdpresentation on 02/14/2013. This presentation was made; again the corporation did not licensethe idea. Our last contact with the clients was in December 2013.Throughout this process, they had been continually apprised of the status throughconsistent updates. We contacted them to discuss further services which they have not engaged.As such, we have completed all services with their approval, authorization and to theirdocumented satisfaction. We have not received any further authorization to pursue additionalpresentations. As stated, our last contact was in December 2013. Now, more than a year later,Mr. [redacted] feels justified in filing this complaint. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices performed with the clients’ express written approval and with their express writtenauthorization.Attached, please find copies of the various approvals, authorizations and completedquestionnaires referenced above. Note the actual approved designs have been redacted forconfidentiality purposes. In the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additionalpresentations at no cost to the clients. If they choose to accept this offer, they need only contactour Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.EnclosuresTurning ideas

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 01/26/2015. At the outsetit should be clarified that Mr. [redacted]’s project was actually submitted as ajoint project, theother individual being Mr. [redacted]l. As will be detailed below, each step of thedevelopment and presentation process was conducted with the express written approval andauthorization of both Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]l.We understand that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative whenoperating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hardto troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s product sample, we try to maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing ourservices and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval and authorization throughout theprocess. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensed. This appears to be the case in Mr. [redacted]’ssituation.His complaint contains numerous false and defamatory statements. He alleges there hasbeen no activity on his project since 2012 this is false. We continued to work with him through2013. He authorized a presentation of the project in February 2013, and the presentation wasmade in April 2013. Our last contact with him was on December 02, 2013. He alleges “not onecompany has yet had the opportunity to review” his project this is false. He specificallyauthorized, in writing, three presentations of his project. All three presentations were made,however no corporation chose to license the product idea. Finally, his post completely ignoresthe fact that each step of the process was performed with his express written approval andauthorization. He even completed questionnaires in which he provided positive feedback.On 02/09 2009 Mr. [redacted] and Mr. [redacted]l entered an agreement for the designand construction of a product sample. A proposed design was prepared and submitted for theirapproval. They approved the product sample design in July 2009 and completed a questionnaireabout the design providing positive feedback. Based upon this approval, the physical productsample was constructed and presentation materials prepared. The presentation material, in theform of an Executive Briefing, which included an actual photograph of the constructed productsample, was provided to them. On 10/30/2009, they authorized, in writing, the presentation of theproduct sample to a corporation and completed a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing inwhich they provided positive feedback. The product idea was presented; unfortunately, thecorporation chose not to license the product idea. At their express direction, a secondpresentation was made to a second corporation, who again chose not to license the idea. Asnoted in the complaint, the product sample was re-designed following concerns they hadexpressed. This re-design was performed at no cost to the clients. They approved the re-designedsample in November 2012. Presentation materials were again created and they authorized a thirdpresentation on 02/14/2013. This presentation was made; again the corporation did not licensethe idea. Our last contact with the clients was in December 2013.Throughout this process, they had been continually apprised of the status throughconsistent updates. We contacted them to discuss further services which they have not engaged.As such, we have completed all services with their approval, authorization and to theirdocumented satisfaction. We have not received any further authorization to pursue additionalpresentations. As stated, our last contact was in December 2013. Now, more than a year later,Mr. [redacted] feels justified in filing this complaint. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices performed with the clients’ express written approval and with their express writtenauthorization.Attached, please find copies of the various approvals, authorizations and completedquestionnaires referenced above. Note the actual approved designs have been redacted forconfidentiality purposes. In the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additionalpresentations at no cost to the clients. If they choose to accept this offer, they need only contactour Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.EnclosuresTurning ideas

Consumer

Response:

We did

sign off on two, very generic, “Product Rendering Forms” & “Shipping

Procedure Agreements”. At the time, our

assumption was that the actual prototype rendered in the photograph

worked. These forms were signed off for

presentations & shipments [redacted] We received no proof these presentations ever

occurred. We were told they were completed and that the company was not

interested, that was it. It would have

been nice to actually see the presentations and/or proposals that were

submitted to them for review. Did it contain

competitive information, estimated production costs, estimated revenue by

product line (water/ice rescue, water recreation, exercise, ice fishing, etc…)???

If this type of information was not presented, and the prototype did not work,

why would anyone be interested in manufacturing it? How was the prototype shipped to them? It could not be shipped to us when we

requested it for testing following the second rejection. What was their feedback? Were they asked to complete a survey and/or

questionnaire regarding what they did like, did not like, and reasons for it

not being a fit in their product line?

We did

have a number of concerns with the design of their prototype after we saw the

final renderings. Our concerns were

verbally dismissed, and we were told that any potential companies would address

the short comings through their own R&D department. After hearing this

“over-used” response numerous times, we felt they had no intentions of

correcting the problems. In our

opinion, we were “strong armed” into moving forward with their vision not

ours. Also in our opinion, we believe

Davison lacked the creative capacity to make something eye appealing and the

engineering fortitude to make something that worked. They made us something we were not expecting,

it did not perform as intended, and they refuse to refund any money.

It was

around this time we began to get suspicious, and expanded our due diligence of

Davison (albeit late), and discovered a history of exactly what we were

experiencing. Please search google:

“Davison lawsuits”.

Following

our drive to Pittsburgh to pick up the first prototype, and the failed test, we

asked Davison to redo it, which they did and provided a video of it

working. Not nearly as well as our

original prototype, but it at least floated (not like their first attempt), and

it was able to propel on water.

We

signed off on a third set of forms for the second prototype. At the end of our rope now, but what else did

we have to lose at this point? The third presentation was for [redacted], and

we were again told the same thing… they have no interest, and provided no

supporting specifically what these companies thought; if in fact a presentation

was completed. The only way to improve what we have is to listen to the folks

that would be responsible for making & selling it, then going back to the

drawing board and working together to make it happen.

We do appreciate

the offer to present to two more companies, but hesitant to accept this offer

until we know exactly what will be presented and can review the presentation,

proposal, executive briefing, etc….prior.

How will the prototype be shipped?

Who are the target companies? Can

we get some sort of guarantee that we can review all this and that we will get

feedback, positive or negative, following?

Our

primary goal is to prevent this type of thing happening to anyone else. In our opinion, and apparently a number of

other folks that have posted on Western PA Revdex.com and other consumer protection

websites, the business practices of Davison might still be considered questionable. We are hopeful for a positive outcome but

wonder if that can ever be achieved.Regards,

Consumer

Response:

We did

sign off on two, very generic, “Product Rendering Forms” & “Shipping

Procedure Agreements”. At the time, our

assumption was that the actual prototype rendered in the photograph

worked. These forms were signed off for

presentations & shipments [redacted] We received no proof these presentations ever

occurred. We were told they were completed and that the company was not

interested, that was it. It would have

been nice to actually see the presentations and/or proposals that were

submitted to them for review. Did it contain

competitive information, estimated production costs, estimated revenue by

product line (water/ice rescue, water recreation, exercise, ice fishing, etc…)???

If this type of information was not presented, and the prototype did not work,

why would anyone be interested in manufacturing it? How was the prototype shipped to them? It could not be shipped to us when we

requested it for testing following the second rejection. What was their feedback? Were they asked to complete a survey and/or

questionnaire regarding what they did like, did not like, and reasons for it

not being a fit in their product line?

We did

have a number of concerns with the design of their prototype after we saw the

final renderings. Our concerns were

verbally dismissed, and we were told that any potential companies would address

the short comings through their own R&D department. After hearing this

“over-used” response numerous times, we felt they had no intentions of

correcting the problems. In our

opinion, we were “strong armed” into moving forward with their vision not

ours. Also in our opinion, we believe

Davison lacked the creative capacity to make something eye appealing and the

engineering fortitude to make something that worked. They made us something we were not expecting,

it did not perform as intended, and they refuse to refund any money.

It was

around this time we began to get suspicious, and expanded our due diligence of

Davison (albeit late), and discovered a history of exactly what we were

experiencing. Please search google:

“Davison lawsuits”.

Following

our drive to Pittsburgh to pick up the first prototype, and the failed test, we

asked Davison to redo it, which they did and provided a video of it

working. Not nearly as well as our

original prototype, but it at least floated (not like their first attempt), and

it was able to propel on water.

We

signed off on a third set of forms for the second prototype. At the end of our rope now, but what else did

we have to lose at this point? The third presentation was for [redacted], and

we were again told the same thing… they have no interest, and provided no

supporting specifically what these companies thought; if in fact a presentation

was completed. The only way to improve what we have is to listen to the folks

that would be responsible for making & selling it, then going back to the

drawing board and working together to make it happen.

We do appreciate

the offer to present to two more companies, but hesitant to accept this offer

until we know exactly what will be presented and can review the presentation,

proposal, executive briefing, etc….prior.

How will the prototype be shipped?

Who are the target companies? Can

we get some sort of guarantee that we can review all this and that we will get

feedback, positive or negative, following?

Our

primary goal is to prevent this type of thing happening to anyone else. In our opinion, and apparently a number of

other folks that have posted on Western PA Revdex.com and other consumer protection

websites, the business practices of Davison might still be considered questionable. We are hopeful for a positive outcome but

wonder if that can ever be achieved.Regards,

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint. Without reiteration, Davison’s original response of 02/03/2015 is incorporated as if fully set forth herein.As detailed in the initial response, Mr. [redacted] approved the original design of his product sample, completed a questionnaire giving positive feedback and authorized the presentation to two targeted companies. After those companies declined to pursue his product idea, Mr, [redacted] raised concerns about the product sample. At no cost to him, the product sample was redesigned. Again, he approved the re-design, and authorized a third presentation. Again, the product idea was not licensed. Now, more than a year after our last contact with Mr. [redacted], he alleges he was “strong armed”. This allegation has no factual basis and evidences a retrospective rationalization. The new product development process is a high risk venture. There is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed and no guarantee of a financial gain. All of our disclosures and contracts have numerous, explicit statements on that point.While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided. nor does it alter the fact that said services were provided with the client’s approval and authorization.Mr. [redacted] raises questions about the offer of two additional presentations at no cost to him. The specific targeted corporation would be selected by the Licensing Department. Mr. [redacted] would be provided with their identity, as well as information about Davison’s past presentations to each corporation. With regard to the form of presentation, that depends largely upon the practices and preferences of the particular targeted company. Typically, the initial presentation is visual, descriptive information provided to the company contact and the product sample is shipped upon request. The authorization to make the presentation (a copy of which was previously provided) explicitly states; “I authorize Davison to ship visual information prior to shipping product sample materials.” At all times, Davison endeavors to present a client’s product idea in a manner that will allow a full and fair evaluation from the targeted corporation. He also requests a “guarantee” that the targeted corporation will provide feedback. This is a detail that Davison has no control over, thus can provide no such guarantee. Simply put, many companies do not provide an explanation of their decision. Accordingly, Davison can not relay to the client more detail than what is shared by the targeted corporation.Davison continues its offer of two additional presentations at no cost to the client. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Turning ideas into products

Review: breach of contract, design and built sample product to present to company for lic. 8 to 12 weeks time frame .is now 16 weeks . paid in full. need electrical semantics blue print, design blue print, also working sampleas described in contract. attorney sent letter but no response.Desired Settlement: refund of full amount,or have project completed in 14 days

Business

Response:

See attached File

Dear [redacted];??

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/01/2013. Mr. [redacted] alleges a breach of contract, a lack of response to his attorney, and a time delay in completing services. Each issue will be addressed below. As indicated, Mr. [redacted] has secured counsel who has contacted Davison and set forth in detail the allegation of a breach of contract. Enclosed, please find a copy of our reply to Mr. [redacted]’s attorney which addresses the allegation of a breach. Please note that the enclosures referenced in the letter have not been supplied for confidentiality purposes. Mr. [redacted] alleges an “8 to 12 weeks time frame” in his complaint. I am unaware of the basis for this timeframe, as it is not set forth in the applicable contract. Regardless, Mr. [redacted] made payment on his contract on 04/05/2013 and Davison provided to him a proposed design for a product sample on or about 06/12/2013, less than 10 weeks from the time the contract term began. Mr. [redacted] has not approved the proposed design. Davison has attempted to address his concerns with the design; however Mr. [redacted] has decided to secure counsel to pursue the matter. Mr. [redacted]’s complaint sets forth no basis to warrant a refund. As detailed in our letter to his attorney, Davison remains committed to his project and hopes to move forward in a positive direction.??

Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Review: I paid www.Davidson.com $9,500 dollars and all I got was a drawing and picture of a [redacted]. They took my money and strung me along for a year then said don't call us we will call you if any thing comes up. That was over two years ago. The drawing was not even close to the product that I wanted to invent.Desired Settlement: I want my money back so I can go to a reputable company.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against

Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 03/07/2014. Mr. [redacted]’s complaint

provides a gross mischaracterization of his project at Davison. As will be detailed, all the services have

been provided with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.

There is no basis for his allegations of disreputable conduct and there is no basis to warrant a refund.

Mr. [redacted] entered into an agreement for the design and construction of a product sample and

the preparation of presentation materials. A proposed design, in the form of an Integrated Product

Rendering, was submitted to him and he provided his approval of the design. Enclosed, please find a copy

of his signed approval of the design (the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes).

Also enclosed is a questionnaire in which Mr. [redacted] provided positive feedback about this design. In

reliance on his approval, the physical product sample, packaging, and presentation material were created.

An Executive Briefing, which contained an actual photograph of the constructed product sample, was

provided to Mr. [redacted]. Enclosed please find a copy of a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing in

which he again provided positive feedback. Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation of his product idea

to the targeted corporation. A copy of his signed authorization is enclosed. Unfortunately the corporation

chose not to license his product.

Following the decision by the corporation, an offer of additional services to present his product

idea to a second corporation was offered. On 04/26/2013, Mr. [redacted] expressly declined this offer and

agreed to wait to see if a corporation would approach Davison seeking a product similar to his. He was

advised that there would be no affirmative action taken by Davison to further pursue the presentation of his

product sample. To date, there has been no activity on his project.

In summary, Davison had performed its services with Mr. [redacted]’s written approval and

authorization. The services have been provided to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis to

warrant a refhnd. However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer to Mr. [redacted] two

additional presentations at no additional cost to him. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact

our Licensing Department who will proceed with the necessary paperwork.

Review: I submitted an idea and all they have been doing is scamming me. I do not have any money, I submitted that idea to make money not spend money. Unfortunately, I already sent some to them, then they said my idea has a buyer, then they said send more money, I don't have any. I think now they can steal my idea. wa\hat can I do if they do that.Desired Settlement: 795.00

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]

against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 03/13/2014. Customer

concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication

errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact, to the presentation of a client’s

product sample, we try to maintain an open channel of communication. In his statement, Mr.

[redacted] alleges he was “scammed” and implies the Davison should be providing its services free

of charge. This is simply baseless. As will be detailed below, Mr. [redacted] was provided a

complete disclosure of the types of services offered and their related fees BEFORE any contract

was entered and Davison provided its services for the contract that Mr. [redacted] entered. He has

simply chosen to not pursue additional services, which is his prerogative.

Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’s website.

The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit

an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format,

and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 08/23/2013, Mr. [redacted]

acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the two disclosure

statements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client makes any

payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice

to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then

provides a listing the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the

disclosure as it was presented to Mr. [redacted].

Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, on 08/30/20 13, Mr. [redacted] entered

into an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research

data related to his product idea. Mr. [redacted] made payment of the fee and Davison completed

the Pre-Development services on 02/19/20 14. The Pre-Development Agreement states in

relevant part (emphasis added);

“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample and

relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Clients sole

expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separate

contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for the

targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain

them.”

Following the completion of the services under the Pre-Development Agreement, on

03/07/2014, Davison provided to Mr. [redacted] a proposed agreement for further development

work. This proposal is consistent with our disclosures and the terms of the Pre-Development

Agreement. To date, Mr. [redacted] has not engaged these additional services, which is his

prerogative.

As stated, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered by

Davison, BEFORE he entered into any contract. The services for which there existed a contract

have been performed, in a timely manner. No additional contracts have been entered and no

additional payments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services

rendered.

Consumer

Response:

I received you letter. My complaint was not that I want them to prossess my idea free, it is that they said they have a buyer and when he said he would call at acertian time to discuss things, I thought he was gonna tell me how much I get. Instead he said I have to pay more. I live on disability and my [redacted]s exceed my income. I would pay them if they pay me first, if it really is sold. I wander if they really did find a buer, maybe he said they did to trick me of more money.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] in the

Review: On March 24, 2014, I submitted an idea to an email I received from Davidson, and was immediately contacted by a representative. I received a call from Tonnette Matt, who went over my idea over the phone, discussed what her company "does" and then sent me various emails with videos of other's who had their ideas developed. I was asked to pay $795.00 I paid $695.00 - I received a $100.00 because I paid all up front) for "pre-development services" but to this date, I have asked a detailed break-down of such services, to no avail. all I received from their "pre-development" research was a print out of similar products to my idea (I conducted the same search and found the same things on Google). After several videos, letters, and more phone calls, I finally decided to check this company's reputation with the Revdex.com, and found many complaints filed against Davidson, not to mention all the negative complaints on Google! I have sent several emails since May 5th again asking for a detailed, itemized break-down of what I paid for, and they only want to talk to me over the phone - I have told them repeatedly that I will not talk over the phone, that I prefer to have proof of correspondence, but they have not provided the information I have asked for. I no longer wish to do business with Davidson and just want my money back. Someone should contemplate filing a class-action law suit because it appears they are literately stealing a lot of money from people who are just trying to get ahead in life; they are getting rich by abusing people's dreams! I'm a single mom and cannot afford to throw away money! At this point, I'm requesting that I be refunded the $695.00 that I paid.Desired Settlement: I want my $695.00 refunded to me

Review: I paid them a lump sum for services, and when I had to contact them they said to continue on I will have to pay extra money . When I told them I talk to representative that told me they would search elsewhere they said she no longer works there. They are a total scam , they took my money and they never call with updatesDesired Settlement: Finish the Job

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about11 / 12/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing its clients’ approvaland authorization throughout the process. The contracts are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisions. A review of Mr. [redacted]’s file indicates that Davison has performedall services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.There is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr. [redacted] entered into two service contacts. The first was theinitial pre-development for research which was provided to him. Following that initialservice, he entered an Integrated Product Rendering Presentation agreement. Pursuant tothe terms of that agreement, Davison provided a proposed design for his product ideawhich he approved. In reliance on his approval, presentation material was created and heauthorized the presentation of his product idea. Further, he completed two questionnairesabout the design and presentation material in which he provided positive feedback.Copies of his approvals, authorization and completed questionnaires are enclosed. Hisproduct idea was presented to the targeted corporation in June 2014. Unfortunately, thecorporation to whom his product idea was presented has not provided a decision. On atleast two occasions, Davison offered the option of pursuing other corporations. Herefused these offers, deciding to continue to wait on a response from the originalcorporation.In his complaint Mr. [redacted] alleges he paid a lump sum for services and that tocontinue he needs to pay extra money. This statement mischaracterizes the facts. Theservices under the Integrated Product Rendering Presentation agreement were for a setfee. As stated above, these services were provided with his express written approval,authorization and to his satisfaction. Also, as stated, Davison had offered to provide theadditional service of an additional presentation. There is a fee for this service. Mr.[redacted] was advised of this fee BEFORE he entered any service contract as it wasdisclosed to him as part of the initial disclosure provided to him in January 2014.Further, it is explicitly referenced in the contracts which he entered. To the extent he wasnot aware of the fee; it is not due to a lack of disclosure from Davison. Next, he allegeshe was not kept updated on the status of his project. This is contradicted by the phonelogs for his project. Following the presentation of his idea, there have been no less thannine (9) update calls to Mr. [redacted]. During these update calls, the repeated offers ofadditional presentations were made and declined.There is no manner for Davison to “force a decision” from a company on aparticular product idea. To attempt to do so would jeopardize the review of that client’sproduct idea, as well as any other client’s product idea that may be submitted to thecorporation in the future. While the lack of a response from the targeted corporation isunderstandably frustrating, that delay does not provide a valid basis for his postedcomments. All services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’s express writtenapproval and authorization and to his documented satisfaction. While the targetedcorporation has not pursued his product idea; that fact does not negate the providedservices.Despite having no basis for his complaint, in the interest of customer satisfaction,Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. If he choosesto accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinatethe necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Sincer y,David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Review: BEWARE!!!! BEWARE!!!! BEWARE!!!! BEWARE!!!!The company lacks integrity and uses ambiguities within their contract to justify their insidious practices. Company operates like a slick used car salesman with a goal to separate you from your hard earned money and will say anything to sell you a lemon. BEWARE!! Do not sign or agree to ANYTHING unless you are 100% satisfied with the final result. Company is relentless and will not work towards customer satisfaction. REDESIGN process cost at least half of your original investment; so dont believe the false claim that you will be able to bring your project back for redesign if a company does not accept it. IN SHORT FIND ANOTHER COMPANY WITH INTEGRITY!!!Desired Settlement: Would like the company to adhere to the companys founder philosophy of integrity, fidelity and customer satisfaction and complete the process by creating the original project I submitted to them at no additional cost.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against

Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 12/11/2013. Customer concerns upset

everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a

minimum. From the time of an initial contact, to the presentation of a client’s product sample, we try to

maintain an open channel of communication. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, clients are

occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed. Having reviewed Mr.

[redacted]’s file, this appears to be the situation.

Mr. [redacted] contracted with Davison for the design, construction, and presentation of a product

sample. On or about 03 15/20 12, he approved the design and completed a questionnaire about the

Integrated Product Rendering in which he provided positive feedback. In reliance upon his approval, the

physical product sample was constructed and presentation materials prepared. Mr. [redacted] authorized the

presentation of his product sample and completed another questionnaire about the Executive Briefing

presentation material in which he again provided positive feedback. His product idea was presented;

unfortunately the target corporation chose not to license his idea. Additional presentation services were

offered, though he has declined. Copies of the various approvals, authorizations, and signed questionnaires

are attached (note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes).

Mr. [redacted]’s complaint demands that Davison re-design his product sample to meet his initial pre

conceived idea. It is important to note that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer that creates a product

sample based upon the client’s preconceived notions. Davison is a design and development firm whose

goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client.

The design and construction of his product sample was completed with his express written approval and to

his documented satisfaction. Despite this fact, Davison offered to re-design, and reconstruct, the product

sample to meet his requirements; however there is a significant cost in this undertaking. Bearing in mind

that he has paid for, and received, a product sample in compliance with the contract terms, we offered this

additional service at a greatly reduced fee. Mr. [redacted] has declined this offer.

All services have been provided with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. All

services have met with his documented satisfaction. Additional services have been offered, at a reduced

fee, and Mr. [redacted] has declined such additional service. There is no factual basis to support his complaint.

sincerely

Associate Counsel

Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Review: Said they have a buyer for my product,pushed me to pay them $10,000, then after I did pay, they asked for additional $ 395.00 for developing product packaging, after I paid, moments later they sent me a letter stating that the company wasn't interested,but to send another $ 395.00 to repackage the product for another potential buyer,and this may go on many times until they have a buyer. Forking over $395.00. Thank God I stopped on the first payment . I paid $ 10,000.00 for what? They lied to me saying " They have a buyer interested". They bully, or pressure me on the phone,saying in a demeanor tone "LOOK! I ain't got time to play around"! Pressuring. Every time I call my REP, he directs me to licensing , and they give me the same scripted story " Send money".Desired Settlement: Give back $10,000.00.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]

Review: I was hoping to get my.idea going so contacted davison inventions, after talking to the person that helping me I never heard from him again but I didn't give any money uet, then about a month later or so I received a call.from a different person asking about my.idea

She sounded very nice and I told me the proceeds. All tho the fees she was asking for where very high it sounded okay because she also said that I would be making a lot if money

to my understanding they were going to be able to make the product while I was making pauments, but I did understood, I am supposed to make a full payment so they can do the product or make.payments but they won't do anything with the product until all.the money it's paid off, and it's $14000, I can't afford it

I sent them I think $800 first for the license research and then $1000 to start but this is before she explain thatyou product would be on hold until paying in full

With the first payment the paperwork I trcrivr wasn't even related to my idea but I was exited about it and now I am loosing all.that money

Is there any way to get any of it back?

I had talked to the lady that I had been talking to about my idea and she says the money was use for the brainstorming of the idea, I understand I wasn't very smart to decide to do this but I was too exited about it to see it

I understand that I am in fault too for not doing my r3seach on the company. But I would like to at least receive most of the money backDesired Settlement: I understand that I am in fault too for not doing my reseach on the company. But I would like to at least receive most of the money back

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about04 10/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of aninitial contact and throughout our process, we maintain an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing our services and fees upfront and securing our clients’approval and authorization throughout the process. Our contracts are simply written,with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with our clientsabout our services and fees. In his statement, Mr. [redacted] implies he was misled aboutthe costs associated with the development of his project. As will be detailed below, Mr.[redacted] was provided explicit, clear disclosures of the relevant fees.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’swebsite. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible fora person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in aprintable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledging thedisclosures. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received andread the two disclosure statements. It is important to note that the disclosures are madeBEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek morethan one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing our services.Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered into anagreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to his product idea. Davison completed the Pre-Development services andforwarded the compiled research to Mr. [redacted] on 07 28/2014. The research comprisedeleven (11) U.S. patent documents and information on six (6) products currently in themarket which are similar to his submitted idea.The Pre-Development Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaininga product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product ina professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services,under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is awarethat he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosuresthat Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, Davison offered additional services for the developmentof his project. Mr. [redacted] entered into a second contract, the New Product SampleAgreement, for the design and construction of a product sample. This contract provided aseven day revocation period which Mr. [redacted] did not invoke. He selected a paymentoption and has made a partial payment toward the fee. The contract provides that noservices are due until full payment has been received. Davison is willing to proceedunder the terms of the contract; however there is no basis for a refund if the contract iscancelled after expiration of the revocation period.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison has nointerest in retaining fees for services that will not be performed. Davison will agree towaive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of the monies paid toward theNew Product Sample Agreement. There is no basis to refund any monies on the PreDevelopment Agreement as these services have been performed. If Mr. [redacted] desiresto accept this offer, he need simply contact our legal department and the paper work willbe forwarded to his attention.[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

My english is not the best but for my understanding I will only be refunded 80% of my last payment, which was $1000? but nothing from the first payment of $700?I would like to at least receive at least 50% for the first payent and the 80% of the last, I am still paying that money that I had to borrow, my mistake was not to ask for a friend to be my trasnlator or ask for the payperwork in spanishi am sorry for all of this, I should've done more research, loosing $900 out of the $1700 that I paid it seems very unfair, I cant even pay fro my cellphone billThank you

Review: Davison advertises and claims that if you pay them $720 they will help you produce, patent and sell your inventions. This is untrue. The fee of $720 is for them to "create a contract" and "find a company to sell your invention to". In fact fees are from $12000 to $8000 depending on the royalties you want to pay Davison when and if they actually do help you produce your ivention and sell it. This is not disclosed to you in any of your initial cotact with this firm. Or when fees are paid. I explained to Mr. Ted M[redacted] in our phone coversation regarding the NDSA agreement that I could not and would not pursue this invention with his firm and that I want a refund. I have not heard back from him. I have sent 3 emails requesting full refund.Desired Settlement: I would like a refund of the monies paid $720 since I am not going to pursue this invention. There has been no prototype created and his firm did not do anything to patent my idea to date.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/29/20 16. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimu** From the time of an initial contact and throughout the developmentand presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing itsservices and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print”provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorization. It is not possible to be moreupfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project. A review ofMs. [redacted]’s file indicates that she was provided with, and acknowledged, the disclosures of allfees and services BEFORE she entered any service contract or made any payment to Davison.The services for which she contracted have been completed. She has declined the offer ofadditional services, which is her prerogative. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for hercomplaint.Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on11/13/2015. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client entersany service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statementthat “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees.Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees. Ms. [redacted]acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read the two disclosurestatements. Enclosed please find a copy of the electronic data record documenting heracknowledgment at 03:04:27 on 11/13/2015 from IP address 73.179.145.45.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered the initial predevelopment contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products,on the market at that time, which were similar to her idea. This research was completed and thematerial provided to her in a Product Portfolio on 01/07/2016. The contract for the predevelopment service contains the following provision;“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packagingand relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’ssole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separatecontract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for thetargeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtainthem.”On 01/27/2016, consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and thedisclosures provided to Ms. [redacted], Davison offered additional services for the furtherdevelopment of her project. Ms. [redacted] declined these additional services, which is herprerogative.Ms. [redacted]’s complaint contains numerous false allegations and mischaracterizations.Her allegation that the services and fees were not disclosed to her is simply false. As statedabove, every individual who submits an idea through Davison’s website is provided with, andacknowledges having received and read, the disclosures. Further, the disclosures are freelyavailable on Davison’s website. Davison can not confirm that she actually read the disclosures,only that she acknowledge having done so.Next she claims the services offered are to “produce, patent and sell your invention”.This mischaracterizes Davison’s services. First, Davison is not a prototype manufacturer thatcreates a product sample based upon the client’s preconceived notions. Davison is a design anddevelopment firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to theproblem identified by the client. Second, Davison does not offer patent services. Davison is nota law firm and does not advertise that it provides patent services or any other legal services. Thecontracts for services do not include patent filing services or any other legal services. Thecontracts are explicitly clear that the Client is solely responsible for securing any and allintellectual property protections. Finally, Davison does not “sell” its clients’ product ideas to thegeneral public, they design and develop product ideas for presentation to corporations who in turnmay manufacture and market the product. To the extent Ms. [redacted] misunderstood the natureand scope of services offered such misunderstanding is not due to a lack of disclosure byDavison.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and related fees BEFORE sheentered any contract. The services for which she contracted have been performed. Her decisionto not pursue the further development of her product idea does not negate the initial service whichwas completed. There is neither basis for a refund nor support for her complaint.SincerelyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Review: We hired Davidson Developing to design and Promote my idea, we paid them around $ 7,000.00. What they did sent us only pickture how will looks like no any develpment has been done or any advertizment. They told me than they contacted [redacted] Co and told us if we wish to continue than did ask for more money. They thift they stold us money and gave us back just pure one page picktures. They took our money and done nothing in return. Davison worse Co what I ever deal. Also we paid for Provision patent , but we never got Certificate from them.Desired Settlement: Davison must return our money back. They done nothing, only called us every month and sent us bad photo how product will looks with out any design. We need to have Patent Provision Certificate what we paid for

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/18/2013. At the outset, it bears noting that Mr. [redacted] is a minor, all contracts and services have been rendered to him as a co-inventor with his mother, [redacted]. In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges that Davison has “done nothing” and are asking for “more money” to continue his project. As will be detailed below, all services and fees were disclosed BEFORE any contract was entered or any fees paid. Davison has provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis for a refund. Mr. [redacted] and his mother contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’s website. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 05/12/2011, they acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that they received and read the two disclosure statements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client makes any payment to Davison. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure statement that sets out the various services and related fees. Following the acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered into an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data related to his product idea. Davison completed the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled research to Mr. [redacted]. Following the completion of the services under the Pre-Development Agreement, on 02/01/2012, Mr. [redacted] entered into an agreement for the creation of an Integrated Product Rendering and presentation materials illustrating his product idea. It is important to note that he did not enter into an agreement for the design, development and constructing of a product sample, though such a contract was offered. Davison provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. Enclosed, please find a copy of his signed approval of the design of the Integrated Product Rendering (note the actual rendering has been obscured for confidentiality purposes). Also enclosed, please find a copy of his signed authorization to make the presentation of his product idea. In addition to approving and authorizing the services, Mr. [redacted] has completed questionnaires in which he has provided positive feedback. Enclosed pleas find a copy of the questionnaire dated 06/22/2012 about the Integrated Product Rendering and the questionnaire dated 08/13/2012 about the Executive Briefing material. Mr. [redacted]’s product idea was presented to the target corporation who is currently reviewing the project. Consistent with the disclosures and contracts, Davison has offered to make an additional presentation, though Mr. [redacted] has declined this additional service. Mr. [redacted]’s comments about his Provisional Application for Patent are misdirected. All patent applications are filed by the client directly with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If Mr. [redacted] has made a filing with the USPTO, he should direct his inquiries about a receipt to them. As detailed, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis for a refund. Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

Review: I paid for services that were not truthful from the beginning. I was told lies of what they could do for my product [redacted]. They did not provide the services that I was told they could do to help me get my product [redacted] on the market. They are unreliable and untruthful. Two of their employe's that I personally spoke with and e-mailed no longer have e-mails with the company and so I can not get in touch with anyone regarding my project or the monies that I paid them for services. Davison is a SCAM! George Davison is a SCAM artist.I believe that Davison Design & Development, Inc. should have to return payments sent to them for not standing up to their part of their contracts.I am very disappointed with their company and have nothing good to say about their company. Please make others aware of this scam before they lose their money like I did.Desired Settlement: I would like the money I paid for their services returned to me for not keeping up with their part of our contract.

Business

Response:

Review: A few months ago I sent Davidsons an Idea. They seemed to be as happy about it as I was. They said they needed to pay $795. Dollors. They gave me $100. off because of a permotion they were having for new Ideas. I ask Ms Barrow's Is there any other reason I will have to come up with more money? She said no were're good. So after paying this off,She said at first I needed to come up 10K to 13K. I ask are you crazy I can't come up with that kind of money.then I said You Lied to me.Then she calls me back and tells me all I needed was about 7K. They knew from the start I am on disiblaty. I sighned a Confidentialty agreement.Desired Settlement: I wish to be relased from the agreement and A refund. This whole thing was based on A Lie that they told. I feel I was Exploited.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]

Review: Feb. 2014 me and my daughter came up with a baby car seat, stroller, carrier all in one idea and found Davison on line. We contacted [redacted], Director of New Products at the time, sent him our first payment to research it to see if there was anything out there like it. After a very short time he got back to us and said that there was NOT. So we were excited to move on it so we sent Davison another $12,000.00+-. At first there was some communication and they were supposed to get our product the way we told them. They kept sending pictures of just junk that was nowhere near what wanted. We explained what we wanted multiple times and told them to get it right. This went on for a few months and we had to send more money to try to get them to present our idea to some manufacturers. Barbara Browning, Designer had taken over by now and knew exactly what we wanted after numerous attempts and said they were presenting our idea for production. This what near the end of 2014 already. Then we could NOT get them to contact us and we called and called to NO avail.Now is 2015 and they will not contact us. Well we finally learned in July 2015 that Barbara Browning quit and moved to Florida and NO one is working on our product and NO communications. Then my daughter saw our idea for sale on line in Sept 2015 and found out that it was started early 2015. I would think the patent for the idea would have been issued far sooner than being out in stores. They should have NEVER accepted further payment after patent search. To me that appears to be theft. This is potentially 10's of thousands of dollars that we are losing. We also sent money to the US patent and trademark office and we thought that Davison was suppose to do all this as part of payment. Once they got the majority of our savings, the savings of 2 disabled people, they ceased all communication. The lack of communication and lack of expertise from Davisons' 'world class' design team is like nothing I have ever seen.Desired Settlement: 100% refund, finish our idea and receive our royalty checks for our product.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 12/18/2015. Davisonunderstands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s idea, the staff tries to maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing the servicesand fees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process.Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when theirproduct ideas are not licensed. That appears to be the simple truth with Ms. [redacted].The details regarding the development of her project, as provided by Ms. [redacted] inher complaint, are both incomplete and inaccurate. Her allegation that the product sampledeveloped by Davison did not meet her approval and that there has been a lack of communicationis simply not supported by the facts. Ms. [redacted] first contacted Davison in January 2014 bysubmitting an idea for a new product. She entered the initial pre-development contract whichobligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products, on the market at that time,which were similar to her idea. This research was completed. In March 2014, she contracted forthe design and construction of a physical product sample. She finalized payment of the fee inMay and a design was created and submitted for her approval in July. This initial design did notmeet with her approval and Davison agreed to a re-design. Over the next several months, Ms.[redacted] was continually provided status updates on her project. The records indicate no lessthan six updates over the ensuing 7 month period. In February 2015, the revised design wasprovided to Ms. [redacted]. She approved this design and completed a questionnaire about thedesign in which she provided positive feedback. Copies of her signed approval and questionnaireare attached. Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.Based on her approval, the physical sample was constructed and presentation material created. InApril 2015, Ms. [redacted] authorized the presentation of her new product idea and completed asecond questionnaire. Enclosed please find a copy of her signed authorization and questionnaire.In June 2015, the new product idea was presented to the designated corporation who declined toenter a license. Ms. [redacted] then authorized a second presentation which was made in July2015. The second corporation has not licensed her product. Subsequently, Ms. [redacted] raisedconcerns over her project. In October 2015, the Office of the President reached out to her toarrange a call with the President of Davison. There has been no response from Ms. [redacted]regarding this call.As the above summary illustrates, Davison has performed its services with Ms.[redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. Further, the services have beenperformed to her documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunate that the targeted corporationschose not to pursue her product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services. The simplefact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain. Thecontracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. While this is of little comfort to a client whohas expended considerable time, money, effort, and emotion into a project, the fact that aparticular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services thatwere provided.Ms. [redacted]’s complaint raises two additional matters that need to be addressed. First,she alleges that Davison was to take care of the patenting of her product idea. She is incorrect.Davison is not a law firm and does not advertise that it provides patent services or any other legalservices. The contracts for services do not include patent filing services or any other legalservices. The contracts are explicitly clear that the Client is solely responsible for securing anyand all intellectual property protections. To the extent she believes Davison would secure apatent for her idea, she is mistaken. Next, she makes reference to a similar product on the market,and implies some fault on Davison behalf. It bears noting that she does not identi~’ the product,does not state if it is covered by a currently enforceable patent. Rather, she simply claims to havefound some product that she feels is relevant and that Davison did not locate this information inits Pre-Development research. There are literally millions of issued patent in the United Statesalone, millions of filed applications that do not result in issued patents, millions of patents andpatent applications filed in foreign jurisdictions, and millions of products in the market place. Thesimple truth is no prior art search is guaranteed to identify every possible patent or similarproduct. Davison is not, and can not, be aware of every idea for a new product that anyone,anywhere might have or develop. It is not uncommon for multiple individuals to conceive of thesame or similar idea independently. The contracts contain explicit acknowledgments of this fact.As stated, Davison has performed its service in accordance with the terms of the contract.The services have been provided with Ms. [redacted]’s approval and authorization. The serviceshave been provided to her documented satisfaction. There is no basis for a refund. However, inthe interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost toMs. [redacted]. If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the LicensingDepartment who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.SincerelyDavid * D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Review: I contacted Davison in June 2013 4 their expertise in bringing product from paper to implementation and distribution. Idea was a portable receptacle for urinary urgency. I have MS & have urgency. I came up with the idea of a small portable urinary receptacle. The person I dealt with exclusively was Rebecca Moser. She was helpful but very vague and somewhat elusive with a definitive answer in every instance of queries I made. I saved a recording of every conversation we had on tape. We began to talk in terms of money and cost to bring my product from inception to design and implementation. Since this process was entirely new to me, I felt that I needed to deal w/company who knew all the pitfalls & how to guide you correctly. I received all the contract forms via fax and emails. When I returned each agreement back with notations, Rebecca called me back to tell me the form cannot be accepted by Davison with my comments - send back clean signed form back for their records. At this point August 16, she told me any further work required will be done after I paid their fees. I am handicapped now, so I wanted to know from her if my concept was something alreadshe as a consumer would buy for herself or for her family. She said to me she had wished something like my product being available would be very useful, but she was not required or obligated to give opinion or suggestion for any preliminary concept. I told her all along I was unhappy with their vision of my concept that they sent back to me.(I received a folder with a product rendering and 3 dvd's in a case) Their fee for this service and presentation was a total fee of $9485.00 for the Davison DVD self promotion set, my idea sent to the targeted client. RM passed me to Ellen Gallani in January 2014 - told me their target client passed on my idea. We can now send th idea to target company 2 for additional $385. Let us know. I found similar product already on amazon since July 2013, I paid for them to do due diligence if item was already availableDesired Settlement: I paid Initial fee of $715.00 paid in June 2013 they can keep for value of service. I demand a refund of moneys paid in Aug 22, Sept 4 $4217 and the incessant phone calls until I finally confirmed payment Nov 26, 2013 for the remainder $3793.75 w/ promise of redesign. Total refund of $9485.00 Davison didnt honor their terms and NOT suggest all ways to bring product to market. I expressed dimay oo design which I verbally questioned every instance. I recorded all w/ RM on tape

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. John [redacted]

Review: I called asked for my prototype item to be returned to us.I followed the 3 wks for the waiting period, filled out the paper work. have called numerous times left my phone with ast receptionist and other people but haven't gotten a response on when its been sent back to us. contacted the attorney general in your state but they can't help us. were at wits end just want our product back so we can move forward to doing business with someone who has a higher quality of honesty. even the fact that I paid them 5200 for nothing I can live with that when one consider what they did for that money would be laughable.Desired Settlement: send back the product and let us know when it should arrive here locally

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/02/20 16. Davisonunderstands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s idea, they try to maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing their servicesand fees upfront, and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. Aswill be detailed, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’ written approval and to hissatisfaction.Mr. M[redacted] entered into a contract for the creation of presentation material andrepresentation services. A proposed design for the presentation material was created andapproved by Mr. [redacted]. He completed a questionnaire about the Integrated Product Renderingin which he provided positive feedback. In reliance upon his approval, the presentation materialwas finalized and an Executive Briefing depicting his product idea was submitted to him. Again,he completed a questionnaire about the Briefing in which he provided positive feedback and heauthorized the presentation of his product idea. Enclosed, please find copies of his signedquestionnaires and authorization. The contention in his complaint that Davison did “nothing” isnot credible.With regard to the return of his prototype, it bears noting that the contract which Mr.[redacted] entered specifically states; “Use of Client-Provided Materials as Production SampleDavison will use materials submitted by you for the purpose of . . .presenting the product...Davison has no obligation to maintain or return such materials.” Despite having no contractualobligation to do so, Davison is in the process of preparing his sample for shipment and it will beshipped to him promptly.

Review: I went online to seach a company for an idea I had. Davison Design called me and talked to me about my idea and told me that they needed 875.00 dollars to search to make sure it was not already on the market. So in July of 2015 I paid them to do the research.The person I talked to was Ted Morse Sr. Ted called me back a few days later and told me that they could go ahead with the idea because it was not on the market. Davison sent me a DVD of what they found and it was not nothing that I was thinking of, they also sent me 2 other DVD that told me how the process works. I went on line and found my idea was already on the market. I called Ted back and told him what I found and he said don't worry we will change it a little and it would get patented. He told me that there needs to be competition to keep prizes down,its like vacuum cleaners same product but there different in some way. I believed and trusted him then he talked to me about different ways to pay to get my idea started. My husband and I took money out of our retirement account to pay Davison to get my idea going. We paid Davison $10,945 dollars all together and I have not gotten a product out on the market yet. I called Ted and he does not call me back. Before they got my money he would call me back the same day I seen on line that they had a class action suite against them for scamming people and I believe that is what they have done to me and my husband. The last I heard from them was in January where they e-mailed me a drawing of my idea and I called Ted about it with some questions. He really could not answer my questions about the design and I told him that I was not happy with it . He told me that it is going back to the design team and I would here from them soon. I called Ted this month(Feb) and left him a message to call me and he has not to this day 2/25/2015. I sent the President of the company an e-mail of what was going on and I ask for my money back and copied Ted and have not heard from neither one of the** My husband is a disabled veteran from Vietnam and I am on disability so we live on a limited income. I don't understand how people can scam other people like this and live with themselves.Desired Settlement: Get my money back

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02 25 2016.Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperativewhen operating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staffworks very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of a newproduct idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, the staff tries to maintain an openchannel of communication, disclosing the services and fees upfront and securing theclients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. At the outset, please note thatDavison has been in contact with Ms. [redacted] to address her concerns, and she iscontinuing to work with Davison in the continued development of her product idea. Thatstated, her complaint raises a number of points that should be clarified.Initially, she states that the proposed design of her product sample did not meetwith her approval. This directly contradicts the signed approval and completedquestionnaire she completed on or about 01/14/2016. Enclosed, please find copies ofthese documents. Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.Next she indicates that she was informed her product sample “would bepatented”. She is incorrect. Davison is not a law firm and does not advertise that itprovides patent services or any other legal services. The contracts for services do notinclude patent filing services or any other legal services. The contracts are explicitly clearthat the Client is solely responsible for securing any and all intellectual propertyprotections. To the extent she believes Davison would secure a patent for her idea, she ismistaken.Thirdly, she makes numerous reverences to getting her product “on the market”.Davison does not “market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public; they designand develop product ideas for presentation to corporations who in turn may manufactureand market the product. The two service contracts which she entered contain thefollowing provisions:Pre-Development and Representation agreement, section HID.: “Client acknowledges that Davison hasmade no claim or waffanty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find aLicensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design. Client acknowledges thatDavison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client’s Product to be marketed,licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client. Davison has not evaluated the Product;”New Product Sample Agreement, section 4.J.ii) “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will notevaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone. Thus,there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties forthe Idea once it has been developed. Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representationsconcerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Finally, her complaint implies she has an expectation that her product idea wouldbe “on the market” by now. This is an unreasonable expectation. Ms. [redacted] firstcontacted Davison on July 07, 2015. It has been 8 months since that initial contact. Theproduct development process is a lengthy process. Following her idea submission, shecontracted for research services to obtain some level of understating of similar patentsand products. Following completion of the research, she contracted for the design andconstruction of a product sample, packaging, and presentation material. A design wassubmitted to her and met with her approval. Davison is in the process of constructing thevarious items in reliance upon her approved design. Following the construction stage, thepresentation material will be provided to her for her authorization to make thepresentation to the designated corporation. Once the presentation is made, thecorporation may, or may not, choose to license the product idea. In the event thecorporation does decide to license the product idea, there is a significant time period forthe corporation to arrange for the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution of theproduct before it is officially “on the market”. Eight months is simply not a sufficientperiod of time for all of these events to occur.As stated, the services performed to date have been provided with Ms. [redacted]’approval. Davison is continuing to provide the services pursuant to the terms of thecontracts. Ms. [redacted] has been provided a status update and is continuing to work withDavison in the development of her product idea. There is no factual basis to support hercomplaint.SincerlyDavid ** D[redacted] Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Consumer

Response:

In reference to case #[redacted], and response to Davison letter to my complaint:

Review: In May of this year/2013 I sent Davison two payments of $6,000.00- totalling approximately $13,000.00 to develope and design an original product idea I had submitted on thier website back in 2009. Since then I have recieved nothing save a couple of 'phone appointments' with the 'head of new products' and the 'Davison design team'-still nothing on paper about the progress of my product sample-CAD/computer drawing and NO $2000.00 info-mercial I paid for;(Davison kindly added this into the $13,000.00 package-if you're gonna dangle a carrott in front of me at least show me the carrott!).I was also promised Davison would then pitch my idea to certain companies on their list for possible licensing; I'm not holding my breath and don't have any delusions about a 90/10 split if my ingenious idea was to hit the WAlmart shelves by Christmas.The truth is I have a gut feeling Im being strung along here and have already asked for a refund however, unfortunately it's passed the point of no return.Maybe my lawyer could help me out with this...Desired Settlement: I would simply like a full refund of the $13,000.00 and some change. and if I need representation from the same people that helped me with my Va Disabilty Compensation I will contact them forthwith.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above-referenced complaint. Davison has

reviewed the complaint and its file on Mr. [redacted] and cannot find any grounds for the

requested refund.

Mr. [redacted] did pay approximately $13,000 for services and Davison has

diligently performed services and diligently attempted to perform other services.

However, Mr. [redacted] has been less than cooperative.

Contrary to his statement that he has received nothing but a couple of phone

appointments, Davison has designed his product idea and submitted a rendering of his

idea to him for his approval. The company has not received approval or disapproval from

him. Also, the company has very diligently tried to communicate with him about his

project. Davison’s records reflect that its representatives either spoke with Mr. [redacted] or

left a phone message for him on thirty-four (34) occasions during the past eight months.

Mr. [redacted] is correct in stating that he asked for a refund; however, it was not on

the basis of non-performance or dissatisfaction. On July 17, 2013, Mr. [redacted] requested

a refund stating that he needed the money to hire a lawyer for an unrelated matter. His

request was made over six weeks after paying for the services, which is well beyond the

seven business day cancellation period contained in the contract.

As for the video that the company offered to him at no charge, it cannot be

completed until his product is designed and built, which requires his communication and

cooperation. The company remains ready to continue performance. Mr. [redacted] need

only contact his assigned representative to complete the process.

Regards,

General Counsel

Legal Department

Review: Davison is presented as a company that will facilitate the process of taking an idea to a final prototype which can be presented to potential investor(s). I have paid a lot of money and 3-4 years later I only have a sketch that any child can do on basic CAD software. I have been very patient with this company and have communicated my disappointment many times, hoping that it would improve the progress. But all I get is meeting notices which I am not able to meet and when I am available they are not. The delays and excuses have now been going on for months. After continued frustration of wasting time in writing emails and missed calls, I have requested a refund from the company for the incomplete service/scope. Now I get even less attention. The company presents itself as one that will facilitate the process of taking an idea to a physical prototype, with a hope that it will sell. Unfortunately that is not what their intention is. I cannot believe that this company is still allowed to continue to do business in such a dishonest way.Desired Settlement: About 6 months ago I have proposed a generous settlement(refund). But since the company continues to ignore my generous refund/offer, I would like to request the full amount to be refunded to me. I have experienced negative impact on my personal health because of this dishonest treatment and Davison does not deserve any of the money I have paid them.

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]

Review: I SUBMITTED MY IDEA TO INVENTIONLAND IN JUNE 2014. .SOMEONE IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED ME.THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT,IF I SENT THEM $695.00 THEY WOULD START ON MY IDEA AND THE PROTOTYPE. I'M ON DISABILITY AND WAS AWAITING A CHECK FOR BACK PAYMENT.I TOLD NICK DRAGONEER I HAD NO MONEY, AND WOULD HAVE TO WAIT.HE TOLD ME I NEEDED TO GIVE THEM $100 TO KEEP MY ACCT. 'ACTIVE'AND TO BE ENTITLED TO THE DISCOUNT THEY WERE OFFERING.ALTHOUGH I COULD NOT AFFORD TO, I GAVE THEM $100.MEANWHILE, I STARTED DOING SOME RESEARCH AND FOUND SO MANY CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS AND FOUND OUT THAT IN ADDITION TO THE ORIGINAL $695, IT WAS GOING TO COST SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $10,000 TO $20,000 TO MAKE THE PROTOTYPE. THAT WAS SIMPLY OUT OF THE QUESTION.I'M DISABLED AND CAN'T POSSIBLY COME UP WITH THAT.SO, I EMAILED NICK DRAGONEER IN JULY AND NICELY EXPLAINED THAT TO HIM AND ASKED IF I COULD PLEASE HAVE MY $100 BACK SINCE THEY HAD NOT DONE ANYTHING AT ALL TOWARDS MY INVENTION.I TOLD HIM I NEEDED THAT MONEY FOR MY BILLS IN THE FIRST PLACE AND SHOULD'NT HAVE GIVEN IT TO THEM AS I'M SURE I NEED THAT $100 MUCH WORSE THAN THEIR BIG COMPANY DID.BUT I NEVER GOT A RESPONSE OR WAS CONTACTED BY ANYBODY.Desired Settlement: $100.00

Business

Response:

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]

[redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about

09 16 2014. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to

troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an

initial contact, to the presentation of a client’s product sample, we try to maintain an open

channel of communication.

On or abut 06/06/20 14, Ms. [redacted] entered into an agreement for Pre

Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data related to her

product idea. This contract provided a revocation period during which a refund of

payments would be made if the contract was timely cancelled. Ms. [redacted] did not

provide her cancellation until 07/14/2014, well beyond the stated period. The contract

does not provide for a refund of payments for cancellations made beyond the stated

revocation period. However, Davison has no interest in retaining fees for services which

will not be performed. Accordingly, Ms. [redacted]’s payment