Paint Solutions

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 10/28/2016. 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 o f the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing, inadvance, its services and fees, the risks o f new product development, and providing contracts thatare simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with itsclients about the services, fees and the development of their project. Mr. [redacted]’s contention thatno services were provided or that he contracted for design work is simple not true. The researchservices for which he contracted were performed to his documented satisfaction and he has notengaged any further services. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for his complaint.Mr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on07/23/2015. 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 o f the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it waspresented to Mr. [redacted]. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received andread these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on07/23/2015 at 15:45:13 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.Following his acknowledgment, he was provided the initial pre-development contract.As he is a resident of California, the disclosure of all services and fees was again provided as partof the contract. Enclosed, please find a copy o f this second disclosure from the contract. Finally,Section II. B. o f the contract explicitly provides;“B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packaging andrelevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, atClient's sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under a separate contract for aseparate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee.”Mr. [redacted] entered the initial pre-development contract, and those services wereperformed. Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosuresprovided to him, Davison offered additional services for the further development of his project.He declined these additional services, which is his prerogative.There is no factual basis to support Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. As stated above, he wasfully informed, on multiple occasions, of all the services and fees. He acknowledged havingreceived and read the disclosures of the services and fees. These disclosures were providedBEFORE he entered any contract. The services for which he contracted have been performed.His contention that the services were inadequate is contradicted by the questionnaire hecompleted on 09/28/2016 about the service. In that questionnaire he provided positive feedback,agreeing that the service was valuable, professional, and performed in accordance with thecontract. A copy of his signed questionnaire is enclosed. Further, his implication that thecontracted services included actual design work is contradicted by the express terms of thecontract. The contract is entitled “Pre-Development” and includes the explicit statement that“Davison has no obligation here under to construct one or more prototypes, models, or devicesembodying the Client's invention.” These terms, in conjunction with the Section II.B. languagereferenced above, make it clear that no development work was included in the pre-developmentcontract. Finally, his concerns over the selection of a corporation to whom a presentation wouldbe made is moot, given his decision to not pursue his project. However, it should be clarified thatthe selection of a corporation is not determined solely by a review of their current, existingproduct line. Many corporations wish to review product ideas that may compliment or expandtheir current lines. The corporation selected for Mr. [redacted]’s project was appropriate.In short, all contracted services have been completed to Mr. [redacted]’s documentedsatisfaction. He was informed, on numerous occasions, o f the additional development services.He has declined these additional services. There is no basis for a refund for services rendered.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the second round of additional comments submittedby Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint. Unfortunately, she does notraise any additional issues that can be addressed, but merely reiterates her frustrations andreferences conversations that can not be verified. As stated in the prior responses, Ms.[redacted]’s contention that she is entitled to a refund has no valid basis.Though addressed in the prior response, her comments regarding cancellation ofthe contract warrants a reply. Her assertion that she should have been able to cancel thecontract after the services had been completed fails to acknowledge the nature of aservice contract. Services are different than goods, i.e. products on a shelf. When aconsumer buys a product, they can see the product and decide to purchase it or not. Evenafter purchasing, they can, in most scenarios, return the product and the seller can reinventory the product for future sale. That is not the case with services. Once servicesare performed, they can not be “un-performed”. At no time does Ms. [redacted] claim theservices that were performed were inconsistent with the contract. She simply wants arefund because she wants a refund; that is neither a valid nor reasonable basis.As stated in the original response, if Ms. [redacted] believes the proposed design doesnot solve the problem she identified, or if she believes there is a more cost-effectivemethod to solve the problem, she may provide written details to Davison of themodifications along with payment of any upstanding balance owed on the selected fee.Upon receipt, the modifications will be considered. Alternatively, if she decides toterminate the contract, that is her prerogative. However, there is no basis to support herclaim for a refund.SincerelyDavid M. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about11/02/2016. 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 ofconmiunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and providing contracts that aresimply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront withits clients about the services and fees. As will be detailed below, Mr. [redacted]’scomments simply misstate the services for which he contracted and ignore the simpleclear language of the contract. There is no basis for a refimdMr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through itswebsite on 09/30/2016. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes itimpossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosuresdisplayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosuresare made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavison. 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 as itwas presented to Mr. [redacted]. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that heboth received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data recordconfirming his acknowledgement on 09/30/2016 at 23:34:18 EST. Note the submittedidea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Following his acknowledgment forthe disclosure, Mr. [redacted] entered into the initial Pre-Development and RepresentationAgreement and has made a partial payment.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges he contracted “to patent my product”. Thisis not correct. Davison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services or otherlegal services. Such services are not listed in the disclosures, nor are they contained inthe contract terms. To the contrary, the contract explicitly states; “Davison is notresponsible for applying for, assisting with, or obtaining any intellectual propertyprotections on the Product or Design, including but not limited to patents, trademarks andtrade names.” To the extent Mr. [redacted] believes this service was included in hiscontract, he is mistaken through no fault of Davison.Next, Mr. [redacted] complains that he has only received periodic phone calls in anattempt to further discuss his new product idea. It is unclear as to what he may haveexpected. The contract states that “Client must pay in full prior to the performance ofany services by Davison.” To date, he has not made full payment; accordingly, there areno services due to be performed. Also, the contract details the specific services that areto be provided which include “Product Planning Sessions: .discussions of [clientproject] with Client brainstorming, development options and corporate contactinformation.” Continued discussion of his idea is a stated component of the services forwhich he contracted.Finally, the contract provided a three day period during which Mr. [redacted] couldhave cancelled the contract and received a refund of any monies that may have been paid.The contract is explicit; “The revocation provision of this Agreement is the only means ofcancelling this Agreement and obtaining a refund. If the Agreement is cancelled, revokedor terminated after the three business day period, there will be no refbnd of any amountpaid towards the contract fee.” He did not invoke that provision.Davison remains willing to complete the contracted services upon receipt of theremaining fee balance. Mr. [redacted] was fUlly informed of the scope and cost of servicesprior to his entering any contract. He has not cancelled the contract within the statedperiod and Davison has incurred expenses in establishing his project file. There is nobasis for his complaint and there is no basis for a refund.Sincerely,David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison 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 11/05/2015.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 minimum.Mr. [redacted] has been a valued client since first contacting Davison in April 2012. It bearsnoting that the performed services were completed by July 2012. Now, more than threeyears later, Mr. [redacted] has decided to post this complaint using unsubstantiated andinflammatory comments. The significant delay bears on the credibility of his position.As will be detailed, all services were completed with his express written approval and tohis documented satisfaction. The remaining service of presenting his product idea has notbeen performed due to Mr. [redacted]’ failure to provide his authorization. Davison remainswilling to complete the service pending receipt of Mr. [redacted]’ authorization. With regardto the services that were provided, a brief summary follows.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in April 2012. He subsequently entered into acontract for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentationmaterial. Davison submitted a design of the product sample to Mr. [redacted] which heapproved, in writing, and about which he completed a questionnaire providing positivefeedback. A copy of his signed approval and completed questionnaire are enclosed; notethe approved design has been obscured for confidentiality purposes. In reliance upon hisapproval of the design, Davison constructed the product sample, packaging and createdpresentation materials. An Executive Briefing was created which contained an actualphotograph of the constructed product sample. This Executive Briefing, along with aShipping Procedure Form, was provided to Mr. [redacted] on or about 07/13/2012. Davisonwill not disclose a client’s product idea without express written authorization from theclient. The Shipping Procedure Form is the document that provides that authorization.To date, Mr. [redacted] has not returned this authorization form.In the complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges his project was “dropped” when he “refusedto pay another $2,000 for advertising”. This allegation mischaracterizes the facts. On orabout 07/31/2015, Davison offered the additional service of creating a video presentationof his product idea. Mr. [redacted] entered into this contract and made a partial payment ofthe fee. This contract was terminated before performance of the service and Mr. [redacted]has received a return of his payment. This exchange has had no effect on his projectother than the video will not be created.As stated, the design and construction of Mr. [redacted]’ product sample has beenperformed with his express written approval and to his documented satisfaction. Thepresentation of his product idea can, and will, be made upon receipt of the ShippingProcedure Form. There is no basis to warrant a refund.Davison Design and Development, Inc.

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

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         February 02, 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 01/24/2018.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Davison discloses, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of new product development, and provides contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.   It is imperative that the client understand the obligations of Davison and of themselves. As will be detailed, Davison provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, those services were performed to his documented satisfaction.  It is Mr. [redacted] that violated the terms of the agreements.  There is no factual support for his complaint, much less a basis for a refund.   At the outset it bears noting that the services for Mr. [redacted] were completed by June 2016.  Now, more than a year and a half after completion of services, he has filed this complaint.  The significant amount of time between the completion of services and the submission of this complaint bears on the credibility of his position.   Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison with a new product idea and entered into a series of contracts.  Specifically, he entered a Confidentiality Agreement (CA), a Pre-Development and Representation Agreement (PD), and a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA).  The CA sets forth the obligations of Mr. [redacted] to refrain from disclosing the details of Davison’s development process or contacting corporations that are disclosed to him by Davison.  The PD agreement was for the compilation of research relevant to his idea.  The services under the PD agreement were completed, providing Mr. [redacted] with a compilation of US patent documents and information on products similar to his submitted idea.  The NPSA was for the design and construction of a physical product sample, packaging and presentation material.  A proposed design was submitted to Mr. [redacted] which met with his approval.  Based upon that approval the physical sample, packaging, and presentation material were created.  The presentation material, in the form of an Executive Summary, was provided to Mr. [redacted], and he authorized the presentation to the designated company.  During this process, he also completed three questionnaires providing positive feedback; one about the compiled research, a second about the design and a third about the presentation material.  Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed (note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes) as are copies of the questionnaires.  His product idea was presented; unfortunately, that company did not license the idea.  An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Mr. [redacted] declined.  At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Mr. [redacted]’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided.  Mr. [redacted] subsequently requested, and took possession of, the physical product sample.   In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges that he was informed that “we can make changes” – supposedly referring to modifying the design of his product sample.  This is an inaccurate statement.  As stated above, the initial proposed design of the product sample was submitted for his approval.  The express purpose of seeking approval of the design before a product sample is constructed, is to allow the client an opportunity to understand the proposed design and to provide their input.  The contract goal is to create a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client, which may differ from their preconceived ideas.  If changes are to be made, that is the time to implement any change.  The NPSA contract explicitly states in Section 1. A. vi): “Unless requested by a potential licensee, no changes will be made to the product and package designs after Client has approved them.”    Next, he raises a concern over the cost for shipment of his product sample. The contract explicitly states the Davison will retain possession of the product sample.  Again, referencing the NPSA contract:   Section 4. F. “…Client intends that Davison will retain possession of the product and package sample, unless Client requests otherwise in writing.”   Section 4. L.: “The Client shall not be responsible for any additional expense to Davison within the scope and term of this Agreement…. Davison’s obligations are only those set forth in this Agreement…”   While there is an obligation for Davison to incur the costs associated with making a presentation, which may include the cost of shipping a product sample to a potential licensee, there is no obligation stated in the contract that Davison is to incur the cost of shipment of the product sample to the client.   Finally, Mr. [redacted] alleges there was no presentation of his product idea.  This is false.  The presentation was made on June 17, 2016.  The presentation was made via e-mail, which is the preferred manner for the specific company.  Mr. [redacted] claims to have contacted the company and claims he was informed that there was no presentation.  This conduct is in direct violation of his obligation under the CA contract he entered when he secured Davison’s services. Corporations, in general, are hesitant to confidentially receive new product ideas from the general public.  The corporations that register with Davison agree to review projects in confidence and in exchange want to limit their communication to only Davison.  The alternative is that the corporation gets swamped with update requests and projects are rejected summarily.  That is the reason that every client of Davison agrees to not contact the corporations that are disclosed to them.  There is no ulterior motive, only the attempt to ensure our clients’ projects are given a fair and thorough review.  The potential harm in a client violating this Agreement is not limited to that client’s particular project, but extends to all other client projects that are being reviewed, or may be reviewed in the future, by the specific corporation.  The Confidentiality Agreement is explicitly clear; “I [the Client] agree that my violation of this agreement will result in the immediate termination of all contracts between myself and Davison…”               Davison performed its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. The services have been performed to his documented satisfaction.  While it is unfortunate that the corporation did not license his idea, that fact does not negate the services.  Further, he admittedly violated the terms of his agreement with Davison and has potentially jeopardized the prospects of future clients. Accordingly his file has been closed.   Sincerely,   David ** 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 05/30/2017.  In his complaint he alleges a lack of response and an unwillingness to pursue the agreements.  Neither allegation is...

accurate.  Davison has provided all its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services have met with his documented satisfaction.    Unfortunately, despite these facts, clients occasionally feel justified in posting a complaint, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.  The reality is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. From the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing the services, fees and historical licensing data upfront and securing the client’s approval and authorization throughout the process.  The disclosures and contracts are simply written with no “fine print” provisions.  It is simply not possible to be more upfront about the fees, services and risks. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.  Among the disclosures is a detailed statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project.  He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Mr. [redacted] entered into three contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, the New Product Sample Agreement, and a Presentation Agreement.  The services were performed with his express written approval and authorization.  He approved the design of his product sample and authorized its presentation.  Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed.  (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) He also completed two questionnaires, one about the design and one about the presentation material, in which he provided positive feedback.  A copy of those questionnaires is enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  A second company was identified and he paid for a presentation to this second company; which also declined to license the product idea.  Mr. [redacted] was continually updated on the progress of his project.  Davison’s records indicate no less than six (6) update calls to Mr. [redacted] in 2017 alone.  Davison has completed all services for which there was a contract.  Mr. [redacted] has not engaged additional presentation services.                In light of the disclosures provided to Mr. [redacted], his signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaires, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund.  However, in the interest 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 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 04/29/2017. 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 development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of new product development, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.   It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project. In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] makes numerous incorrect and unsubstantiated statements, and mischaracterizes the nature of the services provided.  As will be detailed, there is no support for her complaint. Initially, Ms. [redacted] alleges that she was not informed of the various fees associated with development of her project.  She is incorrect.  She first contacted Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 02/02/2017.  The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format.  It is important to note that the disclosures are made 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 more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.”  The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees.  He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the disclosure as it was provided to Ms. [redacted] and the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 02/02/2017 at 09:29:35 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.  It bears noting that the disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s website.  She subsequently entered into the initial pre-development contract on 02/20/2017.  This contract was for the performance of research related to her submitted idea.  Relevant sections of that Agreement include;   “Section 1.A.: …if Client contracts with Davison for design and product sample preparation services, which are not covered by this Agreement…   …Davison is exclusively responsible for the costs associated with presenting the Product to a Licensee, which costs do not include designing, building or refurbishing a product sample.” and   “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 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 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 at all.”   Ms. [redacted] entered the initial pre-development contract, and those services were performed. Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures provided to her, Davison offered additional services for the further development of her project.  She declined these additional services, which is her prerogative.   However, to now claim she was not informed of the fees is not credible.             Next, Ms. [redacted] complains about the need for, and performance of, the pre-development research.  As part of the pre-development agreement, Ms. [redacted] was provided a statement outlining Davison’s position regarding the necessity of the pre-development research.  That statement clearly explains that a client may develop their idea without such research, but that Davison would not work with a client without first having this research performed.  As to the lack of analysis of the identified existing products and patents, the disclosures and contract are explicit that Davison does not evaluate submitted ideas, that the research is not intended for patentability purposes, and the research is only intended for use in brainstorming for the further development of a client’s concept. Finally she raises a complaint over the selection of a corporation to whom her idea may have been presented.  Maintaining the confidentiality of a client’s idea is important.  The reality is that corporations, in general, are hesitant to confidentially receive new product ideas from the general public.  As a result, Davison works with corporations who have agreed, in advance, to review projects in confidence.  While a corporation identified by a client as a possible contact will be investigated, Davison can not guarantee that the particular company will agree to maintain the submission in confidence.  There is no factual basis to support Ms. [redacted]’ complaint.  As stated above, she was fully informed of all the services and fees.  She acknowledged having received and read the disclosures of the services and fees.  These disclosures were provided BEFORE any service contract was provided.  The services for which she contracted have been performed.  Additional development services were offered and declined.  There is no basis for a refund for services rendered.   Sincerely,   David *. 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 08/23/2017.  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.  His contentions that no one is working on his project and that he was to receive a prototype within 3-6 months are simply false.  Davison has been working, and continues to work, on the development of Mr. [redacted]’s product idea.    Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in August 2015. He first contracted for the initial pre-development (PD) research services.  This service was performed and the research provided to him in September.  In October he entered into a contract for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging, and presentation material for his product idea (NPSA).  Davison created an initial design and submitted this to him for is approval in June 2016.  The initial design did not meet with his approval.  His product concept is more technically involved than what the initial design reflected. Davison has had numerous conversations with Mr. [redacted], including a conversation with the company founder, to direct its further research and establishment of a proof of concept.  Davison continues to work on his product idea, which is a highly technical concept.    The simple truth is that the design of a custom product sample can be a time-consuming process, and the time requirements can vary greatly from one idea to another.  Many projects can not be constructed from existing parts that can be readily ordered.  Rather, certain components may need to be created from scratch, or, as in this instance, a theoretical concept may need to be researched and proven to work before a product sample can be designed.  Due to this variability, as well as other factors such as the complexity of an idea, providing a defined timeline is not possible.  Accordingly the NPSA does not provide a defined time for performance.  In contrast the PD, which involves a fairly consistent timeframe regardless of the idea, does provide an estimated time for performance of four to six weeks.    Earlier today, a conference call was held with Mr. [redacted] regarding the status of his project.  The work that has been performed was discussed, as well as the work that needs to be completed.  Davison has also offered to provide additional services in the creation of a video about his product sample at no cost to him (a value of $2,495.00).  Mr. [redacted] was in agreement with the planned actions and has indicated that he will inform your office accordingly.       Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

Thank-you very much for your time, PS please don't miss understand me. Davison has lost my trust. there was nothing else I could do but to take some action, I will believe there words when I see my prototype in my hands. we will go from there; again thank-you. trust me I will be in touch with davison to see what's going on.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday...

Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         January 12, 2018                 Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 01/03/2018.  Please be advised that I, and members of Davison’s design department, have spoken with Ms. [redacted] on Tuesday the 9th, and Thursday the 11th, to address her concerns.  Based upon those discussions, her project will be moving forward.  Although an understanding has been reached, a response to her complaint is necessary to clarify certain points.  According, a full reply follows.   Her contention that Davison breached its obligations is incorrect.  Ms. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement (PD), and the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA).  The pre-development research was complied and provided to her.  Services under the NPSA were begun; an initial proposed design was created and provided to her for her approval.  Ms. [redacted] both approved the design, and completed a questionnaire indicating her dissatisfaction. Copies of her signed approval and completed questionnaire are enclosed.  Note the proposed design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.  Given the conflicting feedback, Davison contacted her to determine whether she was giving her approval to move the project into the build phase.  Ms. [redacted] had numerous questions about the design, as well as several suggestions on possible modifications.  Over the next several weeks, Davison attempted to elicit the information from her as to the suggested modifications.  During the calls this week, we have reached an understanding and her project is moving forward.  Nothing in this chronology constitutes a breach of any contractual obligation.   In her complaint she alleges she was informed that all services under the NPSA would be completed in 10 to 12 weeks.  Such a timeframe is not reasonable.  The simple truth is that the construction of a custom product sample can be a time consuming process, and the time requirements can vary greatly from one idea to another.  Many projects, such as Ms. [redacted]’s, can not be constructed from existing parts that can be readily ordered.  Rather, certain components must be created from scratch.  Due to this variability, as well as other factors such as the complexity of an idea, providing a defined timeline is not possible.  Accordingly the NPSA does not provide a defined time for performance.  In contrast the PD, which involves a fairly consistent timeframe regardless of the idea, does provide an estimated time for performance of four to six weeks.  Next, she claims her project was “stopped”, with no contractual basis.  She is mistaken.  The NPSA contract explicitly states that a proposed design of the product sample will be provided to the Client for approval, and that construction of the physical product sample will not begin until the design is approved.  It does not make sense to incur the expense of constructing the physical sample until the Client has approved the design.  Finally, she raises a concern over communication, specifically missed appointments.  Without going through an overly detailed review of every call and e-mail exchange, there was a miscommunication regarding three recent scheduled calls.  The first call was scheduled for December 18th.  Davison called Ms. [redacted], she did not answer, and a message was left.   After receiving the phone message, she apparently sent an e-mail to request the call to be rescheduled for the 20th.  Davison did not receive this e-mail, and no call was made.  That was the first of the two missed calls referenced in her complaint.  Following that miscommunication, a call was scheduled for December 29th.  On the morning of the 29th, Davison sent an e-mail requesting that she confirm the appointment.  Ms. [redacted] did not respond to the confirmation request and the call was not made.  While this series of missed e-mails and calls is unfortunate, there is no real fault to be placed on either party.                As stated above, two discussions have occurred this week with Ms. [redacted] to address her concerns.  An understanding has been reached and her project is continuing through the development process.  Davison looks forward to continuing to work with her to the completion of all services.     Sincerely,   David ** 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 09/19/2016. 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 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. It is not possibleto be more upfront with its clients about the services and fees. Unfortunately, despite best efforts,clients sometimes disregard the disclosures and contract terms. Davison has performed thecontracted services with Mr. [redacted]’s approval and authorization. Further, Davison has gonebeyond its contractual obligations, providing additional services at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. Thereis no basis to support his complaint.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in February 2012. Before any payment was made, he wasprovided with, and acknowledged having received and read, two disclosure statements. Amongthe disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than onecontract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of thevarious services and related fees as well as the historical licensing data. Enclosed, please find acopy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr. [redacted], aswell as the data record of his acknowledgment on 02/17/2012 at 14:14:58 EST. Note thesubmitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.He entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and RepresentationAgreement (PD), and the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA). The PD agreement wascompleted, providing Mr. [redacted] with a compilation of US patent documents and information onproducts similar to his submitted idea. He then entered the NPSA for the design and constructionof a product sample, packaging, and presentation material. He approved the design of the productsample and subsequently authorized the presentation of his product idea to the designatedcompany. Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed. The actual approveddesign has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Unfortunately, that company did notlicense his product idea. An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made;Mr. [redacted] declined. At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Mr.[redacted]’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursuedand no continued updates would be provided to Mr. [redacted].Despite having selected the “reactive” approach, Mr. [redacted] continued to contactDavison, demanding updates and submitting a list of companies that he wanted to have contacted.In the interest of customer satisfaction, and with no contractual obligation and no compensationfor its service, Davison agreed to contact the companies. None of the companies agreed to reviewproducts on a confidential basis, and no presentation of Mr. [redacted]’s product idea was made. Aseparate opportunity arose, and per the “reactive” approach, Davison did make a presentation tothis additional company at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. Unfortunately, this second company did notlicense the product idea. A third opportunity to make a presentation arose, and a presentation wasmade to a third company. In fact, Mr. [redacted]’s product sample was sent to this third company.Again, the company did not license his idea and did not return the product sample.Mr. [redacted] continued his demand for frequent updates. He was advised on numerousoccasions, in writing, by the President as well as the CEO of Davison, that continued servicing ofhis project was simply not reasonable. Mr. [redacted] ignored these statements and continued tocall, now demanding the all communication be in writing. He also made a request for his productsample. As the sample was not returned to Davison by the third company to whom it waspresented, Davison was not in possession of the sample. The authorization Mr. [redacted] signedspecifically notes that lost samples were not the responsibility of Davison. Again, despite havingno obligation, and purely in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison agreed to re-build thesample. The sample is near completion and will be sent to Mr. [redacted] at the earliest possibletime. This complaint followed.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] makes a number of allegations to support his claim for arefund. Each will be addressed separately;1. “Davison... advised us that this product . . .had not been patented.” This is amischaracterization. Davison is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. The researchcomplied as part of the PD agreement was for development purposes only, not for adetermination of patentability. Further, the research was composed of information on fifteen(15) products and fourteen (14) U.S. patent documents of products similar to Mr. [redacted]’s.To claim he was not aware of existing patents and similar products is not credible.2. “we would never have to pay any more money”. Mr. [redacted] alleges that the NPSA fee wasto cover all presentations of his product idea, and that he was not informed of any additionalcosts. This is false. The disclosure that he was provide before any contract was entered andthe terms of the NPSA are explicitly clear that presentations to additional companies are anadditional service for an additional fee.3. “[redacted] [said] they had never heard of Davison.” Initially, Mr. [redacted]’s product ideawas not presented to [redacted]. There was a discussion about a presentation, but[redacted] will not review submissions confidentially and Mr. [redacted] decided to not havethe presentation made without confidentiality. As for his contacting the company,[redacted] is an international corporation with over 70,000 employees. I do not know whoMr. [redacted] may have contacted, in what division of [redacted] the individual may haveworked, or what position the individual may have held. Over multiple years, Davison hasmade more than 50 presentations to [redacted]. Assuming Mr. [redacted] did speak to oneunnamed individual out of over 70,000 employees, and that person did not know of Davison,that is simply not evidence of anything relevant to his project.4. “[Davison] never did produce the product sample.” This is false. The presentation materialsthat were provided to Mr. [redacted] for his authorization contained an actual photograph of theconstructed product sample. Also, Mr. [redacted] was provided with, at his request, a video ofthe product sample in use. This video was provided to him on 0930/2013. As stated above,the sample was not returned by the third company to whom it was presented, and Davison, atno cost to Mr. [redacted], is re-building the sample.Davison has not only performed its services pursuant to the contract terms, it has gonewell beyond its obligations, having provided services for Mr. [redacted] at no additional cost. Thereis no basis for his complaint or his demand for a refund. As a final note, in his complaint heraises an alleged unwillingness of Davison to communicate via e-mail, claiming concern for a“paper trail”. It is ironic that Mr. [redacted] states this as a concern as he has chosen to ignore thewritten disclosures that were provided to him, the written terms of the PD contract, the writtenterms of the NPSA contract, the written terms of his authorization to make the presentations, thewritten terms of his selection of the “reactive approach” and the written e-mails of the CEO andPresident.SincerelyDavid * D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regardingthe above referenced complaint. Ms. [redacted] states that she is not concerned about a refund, butwanted to clarify her dissatisfaction that the pre-development services provided by Davison werenot the same as a report she received from another company. While it is not possible to commenton what another company’s service may include, the service provided by Davison will bereviewed.Her basic complaint is that the pre-development service provided was not, in her words, a“research report including a graphic drawing of the product”. The pre-development service wasfor the compilation of US patent documents and products currently on the market which aresimilar, or relevant, to the idea submitted by Ms. [redacted]. As stated in the initial response, thiscompilation included fifteen (15) U.S. patent documents and information on eight (8) productssimilar to her idea. As the service occurs at the pre-development stage, there is not yet a productdesign to provide a graphic representation. To the extent her impression of a “report” includesan evaluation of her submitted idea, the disclosures and contracts explicitly state that Davisondoes not provide evaluations of submitted ideas.The services for which there was a contract have been performed according to the termsof the contract. To the extent Ms. [redacted] believed the services included matters not provided for inthe contract, she is mistaken through no fault of Davison. There is no basis to support hercomplaint or to warrant a refund.Turning ideas into productsDavid *. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. Samuel K[redacted]against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 06/13/2016. Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time o f an initial contact and throughout the developmentand presentation o f the idea, Davison maintains an open channel o f communication, disclosing, inadvance, its services and fees, the risks o f new product development, and providing contracts thatare simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.Mr. K[redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website. Theelectronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit anidea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and theclient acknowledging that they have received and read the disclosures. It is important to note thatthe disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavison. The disclosures provide a listing o f the various services and related fees as well as thehistorical licensing data. Following his acknowledgement o f the disclosures, Mr. K[redacted] enteredthe initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patentsand products, which were similar to his idea. T his research was completed and provided to him.Subsequently, he entered an Integrated Product Rendering and Presentation (IPRP) agreement forthe design o f a rendering o f his product idea and creation o f presentation material. Davisonsubmitted a proposed design to Mr. K[redacted] for his approval. He did not approve the initial design.Based upon his input, the project was re-designed and a second rendering was submitted for hisapproval. Again, Mr. K[redacted] did not approve the design. Davison’s Office o f the President spokewith him to elicit further details in a continuing attempt to create an approved design. Mr. K[redacted]has ceased responding and has demanded a full refund. There is no basis to support his claim fora refund, nor support for his complaint. Based upon his expressed desire to terminate hisrelationship with Davison, further work on Mr. K[redacted]’s project has been suspended, pending anagreement to move forward.With regard to his specific complaints, Mr. K[redacted] initially alleges he was informed he“would make a lot o f money” and that his project would be “on the market in a short period oftime”. Such claims are directly contradicted by the disclosures and explicit contract terms. Thesimple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees o f financial gain.Davison does not make such guarantees. The express terms o f the contracts are explicit thatDavison make no representation about the likelihood o f financial gain. The contracts that Mr.K[redacted] entered contain the following provisions:“Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, orfind a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design. Client acknowledges thatDavison has not made any representations concerning the potential o f Client’s Product to be marketed,licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client.”“Please remember that we do not promise or guarantee any financial gain from the development o f any newproduct.”Next, Mr. K[redacted] alleges that Davison did not perform the initial pre-developmentresearch. This statement is not only false, but illogical. The first service contract obligatedDavison to compile research relevant to the submitted product idea. This research was conductedand the results provided to Mr. K[redacted] in a Product Portfolio in October 2014. After completion ofthe initial services he entered the IPRP contract in March 2015. Had the initial research not beencompleted, it is not logical to think Mr. K[redacted] would then enter the second service contract.Thirdly, Mr. K[redacted] complains he received only “two pictures”, implying he contracted forsomething different. As stated above, the IPRP contract that he entered was for a graphicrendering, i.e. a picture, illustrating his product idea and subsequent presentation material.Davison has submitted two separate renderings which have not met with his approval. Thecreation o f the subsequent presentation material is dependent upon the approval o f the designrendering.Finally, Mr. K[redacted] claims the inclusion o f the term “patent pending” on his renderingindicates Davison’s intention to claim ownership o f his idea. This is false. The contracts enteredexplicitly states that they do not change legal title to the product idea. Secondly, as he points outin his complaint, he has already secured a patent. The inclusion o f the term is appropriate when aclient has filed a provisional patent application covering their idea. If Mr. K[redacted] does not file anapplication covering any changes the final approved design may incorporate, that is hisprerogative and the rendering will not include the term.There is no factual basis to support Mr. K[redacted]’s complaint and no basis for a refund. Hisderogatory comments, allegation o f threats and exaggerated claims (ex. 500 hours on the phone)are pure vitriol, meant to inflame rather than inform. As stated above, he was fully informed o fthe services and fees BEFORE he entered any contract. The pre-development service has beenperformed. The IPRP agreement provided a seven day revocation period in which it could havebeen cancelled and a full refund provided. That provision was not invoked, and Davison hasmade multiple good faith efforts to complete the services under the contract terms. Davisonremains committed to Mr. K[redacted]’s project and will consider any suggestions submitted by him inwriting which are consistent with the contract terms.Sincerely, David *. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Turning ideas into products

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 06/06/2016.Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimum....

From the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of new productdevelopment, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. Itis not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development oftheir project.Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its websiteon 03/03/2014. 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 aswell as the historical licensing data. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing theservices and related fees as it was presented to Ms. [redacted]. She acknowledged, via anelectronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of thedata record confirms her acknowledgement on 03/03/2014 at 23:19:59 EST. Note the submittedidea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.Subsequently, on 02/12/2016, Ms. [redacted] entered the initial pre-developmentcontract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products, on themarket, which were similar to her idea. This research was completed and the material provided toher in a Product Portfolio on 04/05/20 16. She acknowledged receipt in her complaint.The contract for the pre-development 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.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures provided to Ms.[redacted], Davison offered additional services for the further development of her project. Shedeclined these additional services, which is her prerogative.Ms. [redacted]’s complaint makes numerous misstatements. Initially, she alleges shepaid for a provisional patent. This is incorrect. Davison is not a law firm and does not providepatent services, or any other legal services. The disclosures which she acknowledged having readdo not list any patent or legal services. The contract she entered does not provide for any patentor legal services. In fact the contract explicitly states; “Davison is not responsible for applyingfor or obtaining intellectual property protection on the Product or Design including but notlimited to patents, trademarks or trade names.” Secondly, she alleges the Portfolio (3 discs) shereceived was “propaganda”. This is false. The Portfolio contained the custom research regardingher idea and comprised information on eighteen (18) similar products and seventeen (17) U.S.patent documents. Thirdly, she alleges the contracts state that all payments are non-refundable.This is false. Every service contract contains a revocation provision which details the procedurefor cancelling the contract and receiving a refund. However, the contracts are not for thepurchase of an item which can be returned and re-inventoried. The contracts are for theperformance of custom services. As such, there is a limitation on the ability to cancel and receivea refund. This is a reasonable, and clearly explained, limitation. Finally, her complaint states shewants a “guarantee” of a financial gain. This is simply unrealistic. The reality is that the productdevelopment process provides no guarantees of financial gain. The contracts and disclosures areexplicit in this regard.There is no factual basis to support Ms. [redacted]’s complaint. As stated above, shewas fully informed of the services, fees, and risks, BEFORE she entered any contract. Theservices for which she contracted have been performed. Her decision to not pursue the furtherdevelopment of her product idea does not negate the initial service which was completed. Thereis no basis for a refund.David M. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison 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 03/05/20 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 our services andfees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process.Ms. [redacted] submitted an idea for a new product, and entered the initial Pre-Development(PD) agreement. Those services were performed and additional services were offered. She hasdeclined those additional services. The concerns raised in Ms. [redacted]’s complaint demonstrate amisunderstanding on her behalf of the services provided by Davison. As will be detailed, thismisunderstanding is not due to a lack of disclosure.Initially, she alleges the pre-development services for which she contracted “were toresearch my prototype for its’ marketability.” This is incorrect. Ms. [redacted] was apprised onmultiple occasions, BEFORE any contract was entered, that Davison does not evaluate ideassubmitted to it. Specifically, when she submitted her idea, she was provided with, andacknowledged that she received and read, two disclosures. Following her acknowledgment of thedisclosures she entered the PD agreement which is simply written with no “fine print” provisions.The disclosures and contract contain the following statements;1. Inventor Information Disclosure: “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions forcommercial potential...”2. Affirmative Disclosure Statement: “Davison does not provide evaluation of commercialpotential;”3. Confidentiality submission document; “Davison does not evaluate product ideas and does notrepresent that any idea will be licensed, patented or profitable.”4. Pre-Development and Representation agreement, section lll.D.: “Client acknowledges thatDavison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a LicenseAgreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product andlordesign. Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning thepotential of Client’s Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client.Davison has not evaluated the Product;To the extent Ms. [redacted] believes her idea was researched for “marketability” she is mistaken,through no fault of Davison.Second, she alleges that Davison had “found a potential company interested in myproduct.” To the extent this statement implies Davison had disclosed her product idea to theselected corporation, she is mistaken. When she submitted her idea, she did so by entering aConfidentially Agreement. Under the express terms of the Agreement; “Davison will not use,disclose, license or sell this idea with out my [Ms. [redacted]] express written permission.” Davisontakes the obligation of confidentiality seriously, and abides by the terms of the Agreement. Whena corporation is selected and identified to a client, there is no product sample or presentationmaterial created as yet, and no authorization has been secured from the client to disclose theiridea. As such, the designated company can not express interest in a specific product that has notyet been presented to them. The letter identifiing the corporation contains the statement;“Davison has not provided to it [the selected corporation] any information concerning your ideaat this stage.” Again, to the extent Ms. [redacted] believes the targeted corporation had expressed aninterest in her specific product, she is mistaken, through no fault of Davison. Further, she allegesthe selected company was inappropriate as it sells products dissimilar to her idea. Again, she ismistaken. The selected company has a wide ranging product line which does include the productslisted in her complaint. However, her list is not an all inclusive list. The company also produceskitchen and houseware products, which is appropriate for Ms. [redacted]’s product idea.Finally, Ms. [redacted] raises a concern over the return of her prototype material. Again, shewas informed on multiple occasions that Davison has no obligation to retain or return anymaterial provided to it by its Clients. Ms. [redacted] submitted her idea by entering a ConfidentialityAgreement. The Agreement expressly states; “1 [Ms. [redacted]] will not send Davison materials orprototypes that I want returned because Davison will not return any materials submitted to it byme concerning my idea.” Further, the PD agreement which she entered contains the followingprovision; “E. Client Materials. Davison is not responsible for the loss, maintenance or return ofprototypes, drawings or any other materials submitted by Client to Davison.” It is not reasonableto require Davison to serve as a permanent repository of any item any person decides to send.That is the express reason the above language is part of the Confidentiality Agreement and part ofthe service contracts.Despite having no contractual obligation, Davison will attempt to locate her prototypeand, if it is located, will make arrangements for its return.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about11/25/2016. Please be advised that I have personally spoken with Mr. [redacted] regardingthe matters in his complaint and we have reached an amicable...

resolution.Mr. [redacted] has informed me that he already notified your office and requested towithdraw his complaint. In light of the resolution, and pursuant to Mr. [redacted] request,his complaint should be withdrawn and not posted.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about09/24/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Our...

contracts aresimply written, with no “fine print” provisions. In his statement, Mr. [redacted] alleges aproduct sample has been created and he demands that it be sent to him as he has “paid forit”. As will be detailed below, Mr. [redacted] has not paid the contract fee in full and noservices are due to be performed. Accordingly, there is no product sample to send to Mr.[redacted].On 11/12/2012, Mr. [redacted] entered into a New Product Sample Agreement, forthe design and construction of a product sample. This contract provided a seven dayrevocation period which he did not invoke. He selected a payment option and has madepartial payments toward the fee. The most recent payment was on 02/08/2013. As heacknowledges in his statement, there is a significant balance owed. The contract providesthat no services are due until full payment has been received. As such, no product samplehas been constructed.There are a number of additional misstatements in his complaint that needclarification. First, he alleges he hired Davison to “market” his new product idea. This isincorrect. Davison does not “market” its clients’ products to the general public, theydesign and develop product samples for presentation to corporations who in turn maymanufacture and market the product. Second, he alleges he was informed he “has abuyer”. This is incorrect. Davison did identil5’ a corporation to whom his new productidea would be presented, in the event a product sample and presentation materials wereavailable. As stated above, no product sample has been created, thus no presentation hasbeen made, much less a license agreement entered. Finally, he asserts the “buyer” wouldhave paid the balance of his contract fee. This is incorrect. As stated, there is no“buyer”.Davison is willing to proceed under the terms of the contract, provided Mr.[redacted] fulfill his payment obligation. In the event he decides to terminate his contract,which is his prerogative, the revocation period ended more than 2 years ago. There is nocontract provision for a refund if the contract is cancelled after expiration of therevocation period.Associate CounselDavison 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 01/18 2016.Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimu** From the...

time of an initial contact andthroughout our process, we maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing ourservices and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval and authorization throughoutthe process. Our contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is notpossible to be more upfront with our clients about our services and fees. As will bedetailed below, Ms. [redacted] received the services for which she paid in full and wasprovided, on multiple occasions, explicit, clear disclosures of the relevant fees for furtherdevelopment of her project.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 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 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].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 a[redacted]that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain the**”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosuresprovided to Ms. [redacted], Davison offered additional services for the development of herproject. Apparently satisfied with services provided under the Pre-DevelopmentAgreement, Ms. [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 Ms. [redacted] did not invoke. She 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 8000 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 Ms. [redacted] desires toaccept this offer, she need simply contact our legal department and the paperwork will beforwarded to her attention.Sincerely,David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosure

February 04, 2016This letter is in regard to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted]. Frankly, her complaint should not be considered a valid complaint againstDavison.By her own admission, she voluntarily submitted an idea through Davison’swebsite, then immediately filed her complaint....

She did not enter any contract, nor makeany payment. In fact, our records indicate there has been no contact with her, beyond hersubmission through the website. If she wished to withdraw her idea submission, that isfine, but she never even attempted to contact Davison to indicate that decision.Accordingly, her complaint should not be considered a valid complaint against thecompany.In the event your office decides to post her complaint, regardless of the thoroughlack of a reasonable basis, a formal response is enclosed herewith.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me. 
Regards,
[redacted]