Paint Solutions

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint.  Davison has offered, and continues to offer, a refund.  However, Mr. [redacted] has not responded to numerous attempts to contact him in order to process the refund.  Mr. [redacted] initially filed a complaint on 09/04/2017 to which Davison responded.  In that response, it was detailed that there is no contractual basis to warrant a refund.  Despite this fact, an offer of a refund was made, Mr. [redacted] accepted that offer, and your office closed his complaint.  Davison provided to Mr. [redacted] the release agreement required to process the refund.  He has not returned this document, and the supplemental comments were submitted to your office.  Again, the release agreement was re-sent to Mr. [redacted] and numerous calls were made in an attempt to have the document signed and returned.  To date, Mr. [redacted] has not responded.  It is neither uncommon nor unreasonable to require the accurate documentation of the refund. Upon receipt of the signed release, the refund will be processed.  Enclosed, please find copies of the two e-mails sent to Mr. [redacted] and a printout of the phone log documenting the calls made to him.    Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

Hi in response to Davison. Im sorry I had thought I signed the contract with my dad, it was a long time ago to remember. But I know me and my family considered the invention tole to afford 8,000 to continue.. THEREFORE we would NOT have even paid the 695.00 to begin with if we knew we couldnt afford 8,000.. and If it was true  that my dad got told about the fees for continuing invention before paying initia be done as a team. And False, He was only made known of the 695 when we paid it but until we got to the next step of the invention he was NOT made known about the fees for the next steps... Like I said we are POOR and would NEVER be abl fee, I was NOT told at all by my parents.. AND YET I WAS the one who paid the 695!! How is that fair to me?????

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania[redacted]                                      March 20, 2017             Re:      [redacted]                        Your ID#: [redacted] Dear Ms. [redacted]; This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint.  As was detailed in the earlier response, Davison has provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. Copies of his signed approvals and authorizations were also previously provided.  While it is unfortunate that his product idea was not licensed, the simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees. The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard.  This may be 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.   His current comments contain a number of simply incorrect statements that should be addressed.  Initially, there is no basis for his defamatory and inflammatory characterizations of the services provided.  Clearly his intent is to vent his frustration rather than deal with the facts.  The contracts provided to him were clear as to the scope of services to be performed, and all services were provided with his written approval and authorization.  There was no breach of any terms.  His allegation that he was charged for the creation of the video is false.  As stated in the prior response, this service was provided at no cost.  The receipt for this service which was provided to him simply indicated the value of the service and does not reflect than any payment was made by Mr. [redacted].  His statements alleging fraud and disregard for government agencies are simply fabrications of his.  There is no factual basis for his comments.               Despite his baseless complaints, Davison offered, in good faith, to provide additional services at no cost to Mr. [redacted].  It is apparent that he does not wish to accept that offer.  Accordingly, his project file has been closed.  If in the future, Mr. [redacted] decides to accept the offer, then, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will honor this offer.  He need only contact Davison’s legal department, and his file will be reactivated.   Sincerely,  David M. D[redacted]Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc

February 02, 2017Re: [redacted]Your ID#: [redacted]Dear Ms. [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 01/24/2017. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to...

troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. Unfortunately, miscommunications do occur; that appears to be the case with Mr. [redacted].Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison with an idea for a new product. He entered a Pre-Development and Representation Agreement and he made partial payment of the fee. The contract provided a three day period during which Mr. [redacted] could have cancelled the contract and received a refund of any monies that may have been paid. He did not invoke this provision. The contract is explicit; “The revocation provision of this Agreement is the only means of cancelling this Agreement and obtaining a refund. If the Agreement is cancelled, revoked or terminated after the three business day period, there will be no refund of any amount paid towards the contract fee.” Due to personal circumstances, he contacted Davison to request that his project be placed on hold. The representative from Davison mistook this request as a demand for a refund. With this misunderstanding, Mr. [redacted] was informed of the contract provision.Davison is certainly willing to place his project on hold and proceed when he wishes to resume. His project will also be re-assigned to a different representative. If however, Mr. [redacted] wishes to terminate his contract, he may contact Davison’s Legal Department to make arrangements. Sincerely,  David *. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania...

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         February 13, 2018               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [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 02/06/2018.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Please note that yesterday (February 12, 2018) a representative from Davison has spoken with Mr. [redacted] and addressed his concerns.  His project will be proceeding forward. He indicated that he would be notifying your office directly.  However, a response to the issue raised in his complaint is warranted.   The product development industry, as any other industry, is composed of a variety of businesses, some more reputable than others.  Davison strives to be as open and upfront as possible.  All of its fees and services, as well as its historical record of securing license agreements, are disclosed before any service contract is entered.  Throughout the development process, the client’s approval and authorization are secured.  Its website shows actual products that have been, or are currently, for sale and the stores where a client can go for themselves to see the products.    When a customer’s experience is good, it is not often that that customer takes the time to post their positive experiences.  The inevitable result is that review sites are filled with a seemingly overwhelming volume of negativity. Further, many individuals simply note the number of comments, rather than actually read the post and the business response. That is a simple reality of on-line review sites.  When a customer can get to the actual facts about a company, understands its history, experience and services, and begins to interact with its employees, then that customer is empowered to determine for themselves if they wish to work with a particular company.   Davison is looking forward to working with Mr. [redacted] in the development of his product idea.   Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about06/09/2015. 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 the clients’ approvaland authorization throughout the process. The contracts are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisions. It is not possible to be more upftont with its clients about the servicesand fees. As will be detailed below, Ms. [redacted] was provided explicit, cleardisclosures of the scope of services and the relevant fees.In her statement, Ms. [redacted] alleges she was told that $795 would cover thecost of patenting and marketing her idea. She is mistaken. The fee was for theperformance of research related to her idea for a new product. Davison is not a law firmand does not advertise that it provides intellectual property services or any other legalservices. The contracts for services do not include patent filing services or any otherlegal services. Also, Davison does not “market” its clients’ products to the generalpublic, they design and develop product samples for presentation to corporations who inturn may manufacture and market the product.In June 2012, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product ideathrough Davison’s website. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissionsmakes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separatedisclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronicallyacknowledging the disclosures. Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronicsignature on 06/24/2012, that she received and read the two disclosure statements. It isimportant to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any servicecontract or 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 asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and relatedfees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered intoan agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to her product idea. She finalized payment for this service in October 2014.Davison completed the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled researchto her on or about 11/10/2014.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 atall...”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures thatMs. [redacted] acknowledged, Davison offered additional services for the developmentof her project. She had declined these additional services, which is her prerogative.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their relatedfees offered by Davison, BEFORE she entered into any contract. The services for whichthere existed a contract have been performed. No additional contracts have been enteredand no additional payments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices rendered.Enclosure

They are liars, They appointed another person to work with me and I told him that I don't trust them. And if you think , you can. Then go ahead. Also, they wanted me to pay $ 395 per presentations and I refused and that when they did not call to update nor returning my calls. They are the scammers. Don't listen to their lies.  I told the new guy, [redacted]. you better make it work. This is the on going process.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Regards,
[redacted]  I would like to see the e mail of my product to and from [redacted] furniture an davison that they were not interested and also I DID NOT BRAKE contract, what packaging for my product? davison is screening there poor business with letter. I want Proof of what they are saying I got in tough with [redacted]  after all said an done. davison was trying to get more money out of me an I had to look into it before I lost more money.

I would really like to know if Davison has put any new products in to the market place?? Very few from the statistics listed in the contract disclosure. This statistics listed in the contract disclosure, would almost give them the legal right to steal blindly from people. They hold to no accountability accept their own.  Initially when I contacted Davison I was told my [redacted] idea was a good and marketable idea. That it would be simple to make and would really have some usefulness and functionality in the world. Which I still believe. But after I went through the process with Davison I was told, by [redacted], sorry, you idea wasn't selected" and to add insult to injury said, "WE GET 2-3 IDEAS FOR TOILET SEAT OPENERS A WEEK." That was another Davison Slap in the Face.   I found the experience with Davison to be impersonal and I was manipulated into a design that did not represent my idea. I was told that [redacted] was interested in my Idea. But Davison and Robert B[redacted] had their own ideas about how they thought it should be designed. The whole process was unfriendly and did not respect my idea and the design I came up with and paid Davison Handsomely to help me with. The pressure from Robert B[redacted] to hurry up and accept a design inferior to my Idea was an attempt to manipulate the process in order for him to get his commission. I was told by Davison employees Robert B[redacted] was no longer with the company after that.  When the initial [redacted] idea had gone through the design phase and onto licensing Robert B[redacted] was out of there.  And he could not be reached for consultation on simple questions I had to fill out the application form. so I proceeded on my own without his help. Perhaps he had gone on vacation with the money he got from his commission? When he finally returned I had already filled out the form and sent it in. The Customer service Davison provided was only an effort to satisfy their own criteria in legally taking a huge some of money from me and to rationalize it.  Davison has done this again and again to people, burning them in the process. You have a path of destruction and unhappy clients that that goes back over 20 years I am sure. Thank God for agencies like Revdex.com who give ratings on businesses like you. You have an F rating from Revdex.com which is understatement.  I was also told Davison made a pro to-type of my idea and that I would get a sample of it, which never happened. Later when I requested it, [redacted] told me they needed to keep it in their sample portfolio in the event companies would be interested in it. I don't believe any pro to-type was ever created. In speaking with other unhappy Davison Customers, they also told similar stories of crappy pro to-types that were shotty and inferior. I extended way too much trust in Davisons willingness help me design my product. As far as redesigning my idea or presenting it to other companies? I have no faith or trust in Davison what so ever. And would only be insulted to make any more effort with them.

[redacted] October 23, 2017     [redacted]   Dear Mr. [redacted]   I am responding to the answer to my complaint by David D[redacted] regarding Davison Design and Development.  It should be noted that customer service is the hallmark of companies that purport to offer services for remuneration.  I agree that customer service should be the zenith of the company’s mission.  Although Mr. D[redacted] indicates that the design and development of the prototype for my patent was expressly approved by me, there is some untruth to this statement.  The questionnaire provided only dealt narrowly with topics where I find fault.  With this narrow look at what they were doing, there was nowhere I could rate the actual product design or actual product.   In fact, contrary to my constant requests to Donald C[redacted] that I wanted to see the product and presentation with my own eyes, I was never given that opportunity.  Mr. C[redacted] continually promised that before presentation to Quantum, I could see and examine the prototype.  This never happened.   All I ever received were computer printouts of designs and computer printouts of photographs of the prototype.  In this day and age it is quite naïve, simplistic, erroneous, and disingenuous to suggest that a photograph is a viable stand-in for the real thing.  Using programs like Photoshop can invent any photograph a person wants or needs.  Had they included in their “so-called” questionnaire anything about seeing or examining the actual prototype, or seeing the presentation, or seeing the correspondence from Quantum, the answers I gave would have been quite different.  Moreover, when Ellen G[redacted] was assigned to my account, I asked her on many occasions (when I did get to talk with her), if I could see the prototype and presentation.  She either did not answer, changed the topic or placated me by saying, “That will happen.”  I waited and waited, but it never came to fruition.    As far as the time interval that Davison kept me waiting for an answer from Quantum, it was over ten months.  Again, I continually asked Ellen G[redacted] about the [redacted] situation.  Again, the same brick wall came up.  In summary, regarding the product.  I never saw the prototype.  I saw renderings, photographs, drawings, they said represented this prototype.  Again, let me reiterate,  “I NEVER SAW THE ACTUAL PROTOTYPE.  When I requested that it be sent to me, after a wait of two months, I received something so unrelated, it was laughable.  Davison admitted the mix-up, although, Ellen told me that they had no idea where my prototype was.  Jumping ahead another two months, Ms. G[redacted] told me the prototype was broken, and would have to be repaired.  She did not know when that would be because they are not kept informed.  I INQUIRED what was broken.  She had no idea, and could not find out.  I call this a BRICK WALL.  To this date, in over two months, they have not been able to move past that claim of a broken prototype.  I am sure that if Davison has the “build records” as Mr. D[redacted] claims, the repair should be easy to make.  Follow the “build records.”   Furthermore, I offered (when speaking to Ellen G[redacted]) to return the “Sippy Cup” sent to me in person, and pick up my prototype.  The answer was, “No.” because they had no idea where it was.  It only, the last response that it was broken. In addition, I would like to see the correspondence with Quantum regarding my product, especially when they turned it down.    Mr. D[redacted] goes on about the stellar communication’s from my friend’s home.  Many of these calls were not answered in a timely manner or not at all.  If they were answered, my concerns were not considered.  For this very reason, I always tried to call Davison from my friend’s home, place the phone on speaker so that my friend would be privy to all that was said by me and by Davison.  I always knew I would need someone to witness these conversations.   Although Mr. D[redacted] indicates that Davison performed their work with my express written approval and authorization, let me say, of course I authorized them to build the prototype.  Afterall, I paid them over $15,000 to do so.  If I could have designed and built it myself, why would I have invested so much money in them?    I understand that Davison did not guarantee the outcome.  What I don’t understand is why I cannot have the prototype I paid for, nor see presentation materials, or correspondence with [redacted] regarding this product.  If I had an interested company, I do not have a prototype to show them.    I maintain that Davison owes me all the things mentioned in the last paragraph.  Not only do they owe them to me, they have an obligation to get them to me in a timely fashion.  I have already waited approximately five months to receive this prototype.  From my records it only took them four months to build it originally.   One more thing that Mr. D[redacted] might try to answer is if this prototype was so terribly damaged, why did Davison suggest I pay them more money to present it to a company named [redacted]?  What were they going to show [redacted]  I hope it wasn’t the “Sippy Cup.”   The answers to my complaint are not acceptable.  When and if Davison send me the working prototype is left up in the air. They walk away with no problems with an answer that the product sample will be sent at the earliest possible time.  They have no constraint.  When is the earliest possible time for them?    Also, I have saved a.ll correspondence, and I do have a right to claim what I paid for, a working prototype.  I also have a witness to my fruitless telephone calls with Don C[redacted] and Ellen G[redacted]. So, I have a complete set of information, as well as Davison.    Sincerely   [redacted]

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         January 23, 2018               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint.  As stated in the original response, Ms. [redacted] provided her written approval and authorization for all services.  Further, following the performance of each segment of her project, she completed three separate questionnaires, providing nothing but positive feedback.  It is only now, in retrospect, that she alleges a complaint.   Her allegations of coercion and duress are inflammatory, and are a thinly veiled attempt to bolster her unwarranted demand for a refund.  Without reiterating all the items addressed in the initial response, her additional comments will be addressed.   She alleges she contracted to have a “patentable” idea.  She is mistaken.  The Pre-Development agreement states; “Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client.”  The New Product Sample Agreement states; “Davison has made no representations concerning the patentability of the Idea or its ultimate design.”  There is no basis to support her claim that the product to be developed would be patentable.   She alleges she never saw a product sample.  She is mistaken.  As stated in the original response, the Executive Briefing, which was provided to her and about which she gave positive feedback, included a photograph of the physical sample.  Also, the contract explicitly states that Davison is to retain possession of the product sample, unless requested in writing by the Client.  She made no such written request.  If she would like the product sample shipped, she need only make a written request.   She alleges her idea was “accepted as good enough for development”.  She is mistaken.  As stated in the original response, Davison does not offer evaluations of submitted ideas.  This is not “my statement” as she claims, but is part of the disclosures and the contracts provided to Ms. [redacted].   She alleges her submitted idea was changed.  This is true; however the changes were pursuant to the terms of the contact and were approved by her in writing.  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 contract which Ms. [redacted] entered explicitly states the following;   “1. A. iv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncover product design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilities. The ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process often results in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial, to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposed design is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect current manufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market….   4. O. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client…This Agreement does not contain or incorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sample to be produced.”   To allege the performance of services according to the contract as a basis for a refund is illogical.   She alleges she is contractually prevented from disclosing her idea.  She is mistaken.  Her submitted idea is just that – her idea.  Nothing in the contracts constitutes a change in ownership.  She is free to pursue her submitted idea as she sees fit.  The only restriction under the contracts is that if she sells or licenses her idea to one of the companies disclosed to her by Davison, then Davison is entitled to its share of royalties under the agreements.   In summary, Ms. [redacted] approved and authorized each phase of her project.  She completed three different questionnaires, at three separate stages of her project, providing nothing but positive feedback.  Her allegations are simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund.  Despite her inflammatory comments, Davison will continue to honor its offer of two additional presentations at no cost to Ms. [redacted].  If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.      Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 05/27/2016. At the outset,it should be made clear that Ms. [redacted] has not entered any contract for services. She did makean initial partial payment...

which, as she acknowledges in her complaint, has been refunded. Aswill be detailed below, Davison and Ms. [redacted] did discuss the offer of services, but she did notengage any services. Accordingly, no services have been provided. There is no reasonable basisfor her complaint.Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperativewhen operating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff worksvery hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimu** However,communication is a two way street. In March 2016, Ms. [redacted] submitted an idea for a newproduct through Davison’s website. Following that submission, there have been a number ofdiscussions about the idea. On 04/04/20 16, she made a partial payment toward the initial service,though she did not, and has not, entered the contract. In an attempt to move her project forward,Davison made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact her. The next contact received wasnotice of a complaint to an on-line site. In response to that complaint, it was explained to her thatthe idea submission was made pursuant to a Confidentiality Agreement to which Davisonadheres, her partial payment was refunded, and she was informed that her file was closed. Thiscurrent complaint followed.If Ms. [redacted] would like to pursue her project, Davison remains willing to provide itsservices. Her file has been re-activated and a representative will be in contact with her shortly. Ifshe does not wish to proceed, that is her prerogative. However, there is no basis for any furtherrefund, as her payment has already been refunded and no basis for the complaint of non-receipt ofservices, as she never engaged any services.SincerelyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate Counsel

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         December 21, 2017                 Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the second set of supplemental comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint. Please be advised that Ms. Vicky B[redacted] has, or will have in the immediate future, contacted Ms. [redacted] in order to proceed with the offered presentations.      Since June 2016, when Ms. [redacted]’s project was transferred to the licensing department, Ms. B[redacted] has been and continues to be the contact individual.  There have been numerous calls and e-mail communications over the past eighteen months between Ms. B[redacted] and Ms. [redacted].  Davison regrets any confusion that may have occurred in regard to the appropriate contact person.     Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/03/2015. Customerconcerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a...

minimu** From the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services andfees upfront and securing its clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. Thecontracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfrontwith their clients about the services and fees. Ms. [redacted]’s contention that she was notinformed of the various fees simply ignores the disclosures she acknowledged having read, andignores the clear terms of the contract that she entered. Davison provided its services per theterms of the contract. Davison offered additional development services which Ms. [redacted] hasdeclined. There is no basis for a refund for services rendered.Ms. [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 submitan idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format,and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 08/28/2008, Ms. [redacted]acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read the two disclosurestatements. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and fees as it waspresented to Ms. [redacted] in 2008. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFOREthe Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosuresis the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connectionwith a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and relatedfees.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered into twoseparate agreements for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to her product ideas. Davison completed the Pre-Development services andforwarded the compiled research, for both submitted ideas, to Ms. [redacted] on 07/21/2015. ThePortfolios were shipped via the United States Postal Service, tracking # ’s9114999944314481050971 and 9114999944314481050551, and delivered on 08/06/2015.Enclosed, please find a copy of the delivery confirmations from the Postal Service.Subsequently, Davison offered additional services, under a separate contract, which Ms. [redacted]has declined.The Pre-Development Agreements, which Ms. [redacted] entered, state in relevant part(emphasis added);“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to aLicensee, at Client's sole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further developmentservices, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample andpresentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materialselsewhere or not to obtain the**”The Agreements, in conjunction with the disclosures, are clear that additional developmentservices would be offered under a separate contract. To the extent Ms. [redacted] was unaware ofthis fact; it is not due to a lack of disclosure by Davison.Also, Ms. [redacted] alleges misrepresentation on Davison’s behalf for citing, on itswebsite, its membership with the Online Business Bureau. This allegation is purely withoutmerit, and is clearly an attempt to falsely bolster her unsubstantiated complaint. Simply put,Davison is a member in good standing with the Online Business Bureau. The inclusion of theOnline Business Bureau’s logo on the website is authorized by Davison’s status with thatorganization.Finally, Ms. [redacted]’s complaint details her position of demanding that allcommunication be in writing. Setting aside the practical complications that such a policy wouldinvolve, it is curious that she takes this position given her apparent disregard for the writtendocuments relevant to her project. She was provided written disclosures of Davison’s fees andservices before entering any contract, and she acknowledged having received and read thesedisclosures. She entered into written contracts with clear, simple language and no “fine print”provisions. Yet in her complaint she simply chooses to ignore such written documentation.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offeredby Davison, BEFORE she entered into any contract. The services for which there existed acontract have been performed. No additional contracts have been entered and no additionalpayments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about03/17/2016. At the outset, please note that BEFORE Ms. [redacted] filed her complaint,Davison had provided to her, and she accepted, a full...

refund for services that were notperformed. Her submission of a complaint following her acceptance of the refund issimply an egregious action. Her contention that she was not informed of the feesassociated with the offered services is blatantly false. It is not possible to be moreupfront with its clients about the services and fees. As will be detailed below, Ms.[redacted] received the services for which she paid in full and was provided, on multipleoccasions, explicit, clear disclosures of the relevant fees for further development of herproject. Further, while the details of her personal situation may elicit empathy, it is notreasonable to impose a paternalistic obligation on Davison to counsel its clients on theirpersonal financial affairs.Ms. [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. Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she receivedand read the two disclosure statements. It is important to note that the disclosures aremade BEFORE 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 alist of the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosuredetailing the services and fees.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms. [redacted] entered into anagreement for pre-development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to her product idea. Davison completed the pre-development services andforwarded the compiled research to Ms. [redacted]. She completed a questionnaire inwhich she agreed the services were professional and prepared in accordance with hercontract. A copy of her signed questionnaire is enclosed. The Pre-DevelopmentAgreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II B Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a productsample, packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format forpresentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer toprovide further development services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assistin obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client isaware that 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 disclosuresprovided to Ms. [redacted], Davison offered additional services for the development ofher project. She entered into a second contract, the New Product Sample Agreement, forthe design and construction of a product sample. This contract provided a seven dayrevocation period, which Ms. [redacted] did not invoke. She selected a payment optionand made a partial payment toward the fee. It is beyond belief that she now claims thatshe did not know how much the service fee would be, when she chose the amount to payand initialed next to it. A copy of that page of her contract is enclosed. The contractprovides that no services are due until full payment has been received. There is no basisfor a refund if the contract is cancelled after expiration of the revocation period.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison hasrefunded, in full, all monies she paid toward the New Product Sample Agreement. Thereis no basis to refund any monies on the Pre-Development Agreement as these serviceshave been perfonned to her doc[redacted]nted satisfaction.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/05/2017.  Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating a successful...

business.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum.  As will be detailed below, Davison performed its services with Ms. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services were provided to her documented satisfaction.  Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.  Her allegation that “I have no proof Davison did any work” simply has no basis in fact.              Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 09/12/2015.  She subsequently entered into three service contracts; a Pre-Development and Representation Agreement (PD), a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA) and an Inventomercial Agreement (IA).  The PD agreement was for research on her submitted idea.  Davison completed this research and provided a compilation of eleven (11) US patent documents and information on seven (7) similar products.  These material were shipped to Ms. [redacted] on 10/14/2015, via USPS tracking number [redacted]     Following completion of the PD service, she entered the NPSA.  Davison created an initial design of her product sample, which Ms. [redacted] approved.  Based on that approval, the physical sample, packaging, and presentation material (Executive Briefing) were created.  Ms. [redacted] authorized the presentation and completed a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing providing positive feedback.  Copies of her signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaire are enclosed.  Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality.  Ms. [redacted] also entered the IA contract for the creation of a video of her product sample.  She participated in the creation of the video and is actually the spokesperson in the video itself.  A copy of the completed video was emailed to her on or about 11/02/2016. Having created all the relevant materials with Ms. [redacted]’s approval, authorization, and participation, Davison presented her product idea to the designated corporation.  The presentation was made on 12/21/2016.  A copy of the data record documenting the e-mail of the presentation is enclosed.  Note the actual contact individual at the designated corporation has been redacted.  Unfortunately, the corporation did not license Ms. [redacted]’s product idea. At her request, the physical product sample was shipped to her on or about 07/19/2017, via Federal Express. Enclosed is a copy of the proof of delivery on 07/28/2017.                Ms. [redacted] has received the research material pursuant to the PD contract, the presentation material and physical product sample pursuant to the NPSA contract, and the video pursuant to the IA contract.  There is simply no factual basis to support her that she has received no proof of work being performed.  While it is unfortunate that her product idea was not licensed, Davison does not, and can not, guarantee such an outcome.  The disclosures and contracts are explicitly clear in that regard.    Sincerely,   David M. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 09/07/2015. Customerconcerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. In his...

complaint, Mr. [redacted] fails to mention that the serviceswhich were provided were completed with his express written approval and authorization.Further, he does not mention that he completed questionnaires about the services, in which heprovided positive feedback. Rather, he either is mistaken about the scope o f services, or haschosen to misrepresent the scope o f services to support his claim for a refund. As will bedetailed, Davison has provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s approval, authorization and to hissatisfaction. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensed. That appears to be the simple truth with Mr. [redacted].Mr. [redacted] entered into two service contracts. The first was the Pre-DevelopmentAgreement which was for the compilation o f custom research relevant to his submitted idea. Thisresearch was provided to him on or about 08/13/2014. A copy o f the USPS Customs Declarationdocumenting this shipment is enclosed. Following completion the pre-development services, on12/09/2014, Mr. [redacted] into a contract for the design and creation o f an integrated productrendering and presentation material, illustrating his idea. Contrary to his assertion, this contractwas not for the construction o f a physical product sample. In January 2015, Davison submitted aproposed design which Mr. [redacted] approved, and for which he completed a questionnaireproviding positive feedback. A copy o f his signed approval and completed questionnaire areenclosed; note the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. In reliance uponhis written approval, the presentation materials were created. The presentation materials, in theform o f Executive Briefing, were provided to Mr. [redacted]; he authorized the presentation o f hisproduct idea to the targeted corporation and completed a second questionnaire about theExecutive Briefing, again providing nothing but positive feedback. A copy o f his signedauthorization and completed questionnaire, dated 02/18/2015, are enclosed. The presentation ofhis product idea was made on 03/21/2015. Unfortunately, the corporation chose not to license hisidea. A copy o f the e-mail exchange documenting the presentation and rejection is enclosed.Note: the identity o f the specific contact individual has been redacted. Mr. [redacted] was offeredadditional services to present his idea to a new corporation; he has declined this additionalservice. There are no pending services to be performed.to the Integrated Product Rendering, states he did not receive a physical sample, thenquestions whether a product rendering was completed. Further, prior to his filing the complaint,he had raised concerns with Davison over the receipt o f manufacturing costs and specificationsfor his idea. As stated above, he contracted for the creation o f a rendering depicting his idea, notfor the construction o f a physical product sample. This was discussed with Mr. [redacted] on orabout 09/08/2015 and he acknowledged his understanding. Also, in his complaint he asserts thathe provided contact information for an “ investor” to whom he would like to have his ideapresented. First, Mr. [redacted] has not contracted for any additional presentation services. Second,the “investor” information he provided was merely the name o f a British television celebrityassociated with an inventor funding program. This is simply not sufficient contact informationfor a potential licensee.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approvaland authorization and to his documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunate that the targetedcorporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services.The simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees o f financial gain.Our contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. While this is o f little comfort to a clientwho has 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. However, in the interest o f customer satisfaction, Davison will offer twoadditional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need onlycontact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.

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.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
 Regards,
[redacted] Ms B[redacted] called me back later on in the after noon to disregard the email she sent me with $395.00 charge.  I have received the one that has $0.00 charge. The company they presented 33 samples and secured 0; and another company they never present any sample and secured 0.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02/18/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. 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 ofMr. [redacted]’s file indicates that all services were completed with his express approval andauthorizations. Further, the services met with his documented satisfaction. It bears noting that allservices were completed by January 13, 2013. Now, more than three years later, he has filed thiscomplaint. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in November 2010. The electronicsubmission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea withouthaving two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. Mr. [redacted]acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the two disclosurestatements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters anyservice contract or 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 submittedidea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees. Enclosed,please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services. He entered the initial pre-developmentcontract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products, on themarket at that time, which were similar to his idea. This research was completed. In February2011, he contracted for the design and construction of a physical product sample. An initialdesign was created and submitted for his approval. Mr. [redacted] provided his written approval ofthe design on or about February 16, 2012. A copy of his signed approval is enclosed. Note theactual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Based on his approval,the physical sample was constructed and presentation material created. An Executive Briefing,which included a photograph of the constructed product sample, was provided to him for review.In July 2012, Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation of his new product idea and completed aquestionnaire about the Executive Briefing in which he provided positive feedback. Copies of hisauthorization and completed questionnaire are enclosed. In August 2012, his new product ideawas presented to the designated corporation who declined to enter a license. Mr. [redacted] declinedthe offer to make additional presentations and selected a “reactive approach” in which Davisonwould wait for a corporation to approach them seeking a product similar to Mr. [redacted]’s idea.Enclosed, please find a copy of Mr. [redacted]’s selection of this approach.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges he was not shown the constructed product sample.This is false. The Executive Briefing included an actual photograph of the physical sample.Second, Mr. [redacted] alleges he contracted to have Davison “market” his idea. This is amischaracterization. Davison does not “market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public,they design and develop product ideas for presentation to corporations who in turn maymanufacture and market the product. Finally, Mr. [redacted] alleges he was not informed that thepresentation of his product idea was limited to the designated corporation. Again, he is mistaken.The disclosure statement clearly details the additional service for making additional presentations.Further, the contract which he entered contains the following provision:“Section 4. L. The Client shall not be responsible for any additional expenses to Davison within thescope and term of this Agreement, with the possible exception being additional services to present theIdea to an additional targeted corporation which may include services to refurbish or repackage thesample, for which Davison currently charges $395.00. Davison’s obligations are only those set forth inthis Agreement and only directed towards the targeted corporation named on the last page of thisAgreement.”As stated, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and related fees BEFORE heentered any contract. The services have been performed with his express written approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis for a refund. However, in theinterest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr.[redacted]. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department whowill coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.