Paint Solutions

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 11 142015.Please note that Ms. [redacted] is not a client of Davison. She has not entered any servicecontract or submitted any payment. The only...

contact of record is an e-mail from her on11 14 2015, advising of the matters in her complaint. Following an extensive search ofDavison’s records (including by name, address, phone and e-mail), there is no otherrecord of any contact with Ms. [redacted]. Per her request, a notice has been sent toDavison’s advertising firms and other affiliates to check for her contact information and,if located, to have it removed.The accusations in her complaint that Davison has “stolen” her e-mail address andis “sending out emails” from her account are defamatory, unsubstantiated, and blatantlyfalse. Davison does not purchase contact information from outside sources and does notacquire such information through imp[redacted] means. All contact information is eitherprovided to Davison directly by the individual or the individual has provided their contactinformation to one of Davison’s advertising affiliates and agreed to receive materialsthrough that affiliate. Further, Davison does not send any e-mail, or othercorrespondence, alleging to originate from an unaffiliated source.As stated, a notice has been sent to Davison’s advertising firms and otheraffiliates to check for her contact information and, if located, to have it removed. Itshould be understood that it may take several weeks for all affiliates to effectuate thesearch for, and removal of, her contact information.SincerelyDavid [redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

[redacted]1707 Hawthorn WayNew Windsor, New York12553To: [redacted]Dear [redacted] this message is in reply to the letter Davison Design & Developement, Inc. has stated. Mr. Davison stated that all services were performed with my approval and authorization,and to my documented satisfaction. That may be true to his belief, but to go into details by me not knowing exactly and trusting Mr. Davison with 5850.00 of my hard earned monies for a Representation agreement plus ten percent commission on all money received by me on the sale or license of the product. Let me reiterate to you that Mr. Davison is inaccurate about using monies I've distributed for services not rendered to the agreemeement. If using the 5850.00 was all that’s needed to provide all necessary services to include Pre-developement and Representation. Why was I coaxed into spending more monies that weren’t needed for the Representation Agreement, if all services were included.I'd ask Mr. Davison for sample or Prototype to be created providing that monies were paid to him for services rendered. Whence the time of the year 2013 thru the present year 2017 Davison never really contacted me on whether my product was submitted to the USPTO to be examined by Patent Attorney,Practitioners and Examiners, Yet though he declines that his business doesn't handle anything to do with having my Idea exploited with the USPTO. Another inaccurate response to Davison not living up to his obligations. I [redacted]. [redacted] Knowingly aware that I am not obligated to participate in dealing with Davison and his corruption and dish[redacted]ty. I choose to opt out from Davison offer of two additional presentations at no cost. If Mr. Davison had my product submitted to be License then why was'nt I notified whether the product was entered into the license Department or what was the purpose of the Infomercial fee of 2500.00 if my product were to be introduced in a television program that promotes a product in an informative and supposedly objective way, another inaccurate service not rendered in Davison's Agreement. For all i've experience with Davison abiding with his inaccuracies of providing me the services not rendered. I pray that from this argue and debate that I declare a Refund and a rebuttal to this is why I chose to opt out from dealing with Davison Design & Developement. Davison owes me 1000.00 for another Idea the [redacted] idea I had in mind to have processed in a New Product Sample agreement that never went anywhere. I want a Refund as well. Davison never follow up on his obligation and can't be Trusted.Sincerely![redacted]. [redacted]

October 20, 2017               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#:...

[redacted]   Dear Mr. [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 10/10/2017.  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.  Davison performed its services with Ms. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, the services were provided to her documented satisfaction.  In her complaint, she raises three areas of concern; the construction of the product sample, the presentation, and the communication with Davison.  Following a brief summary of the services provided, each item will be addressed individually.   Ms. [redacted] contracted for the design and construction of a product sample and presentation material.  A design, in the form of an Integrated Product Rending, was provided to her.  She approved the design and completed a questionnaire about the design providing positive feedback.  Based upon the approval, the physical product sample was constructed and presentation materials, in the form of an Executive Briefing, were created.  The Executive Briefing included an actual photograph of the product sample, not merely a “picture representation” as stated in the complaint.  Ms. [redacted] authorized the presentation and completed a second questionnaire about the Executive Briefing, again providing nothing but positive feedback.  The presentation was made on 05/23/2016.  Unfortunately the company did not license the product idea.  Copies of her completed questionnaires are enclosed.   Product Sample:  Ms. [redacted] suggests in the complaint that the physical product sample may not have been developed.  This is simply false.  The Executive Briefing which was provided to her, and about which she provided positive feedback, included a photograph of the actual product sample that had been constructed.  The contract terms explicitly state that Davison is to retain possession of the sample unless the client makes a written request to receive it. Ms. [redacted] did make such a request and in the shipment process there was a mistake; a different sample was sent to her.  When her product sample was located, it was in need of repair.  Following the repair, the sample did not meet the quality control standards and it is currently being repaired again.  There is no excuse for the significant delay in providing the product sample and Davison extends it apology to Ms. [redacted].  The only explanation is that the employees are human, and things happen. The product sample will be shipped to her at the earliest possible time.  As further evidence of its construction, enclosed please find a copy of the build records for both the initial construction and the re-build.   Presentation:  Ms. [redacted]’s product idea was presented on 05/23/2016.  The presentation consisted of the Integrated Product Rendering and the Executive Briefing, both of which she reviewed and about which she provided positive feedback.  The form of presentation depends largely upon the practices and preferences of the particular targeted company.  Ms. [redacted] was informed in her first contract, “Typically, presentation first involves emailed or mailed design images and communication is conducted primarily via telephone.  A sample is shipped only upon request….”  The authorization to make the presentation explicitly states, “I authorize Davison to ship visual information prior to shipping product sample materials.”  A copy of the e-mail sent on her behalf is enclosed.   Communication:  Ms. [redacted] alleges that there has been a lack of communication, specifically that her calls are not returned.  That is simply not accurate.  The phone records document that Davison promptly returned her calls. Her calls on January 23rd, May 23rd, July 19th, and August 16th were all returned on the same day.  The call of August 8th was returned on August 9th.  Enclosed, please find a printout of the phone records with Ms. [redacted].    Davison has performed its services with Ms. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization. The services met with her documented satisfaction.  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.  Her product sample will be sent to her at the earliest possible time.   Sincerely, David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

I signed off on the design at the insistence of Robert B[redacted] who
pressured me stating "we needed to get the idea TO MARKET
before anyone else does!". THE WHOLE PROCESS IN WORKING WITH DAVISON WAS VERY INTIMIDATING, KNOWING THEY HELD ALL THE CARDS AND HAD NOTHING TO LOSE. ROBERT B[redacted] ALSO convinced me to accept a design that
was not what I wanted rationalizing that my original idea was TOO EXPENSIVE HE SAID TO PRODUCE. Which was B.S. And that the idea could be
modified and improved at a later DATE.WHICH HE DIDN'T TELL ME WOULD COST ME MORE MONEY. ROBERT B[redacted] ALSO TOLD ME FROM THE BEGINING THAT [redacted] WAS INTERESTED IN MY IDEA. THAT WAS MISLEADING AND NOT TRUE. IF HE HAD BEEN TRUTHFUL HE WOULD HAVE SAID, [redacted] REVIEWS ALL OUR CLIENTS PRODUCTS AND YOURS WILL BE PRESENTED TO [redacted] ONCE WE FINISH THE DESIGN. INSTEAD HE MADE IT SOUND LIKE [redacted] WAS INTERESTED IN MY IDEA. THAT WAS PRIOR TO SIGNING THE $12, 720 DOLLAR CONTRACT. . WHEN I INITIALLY APPROACHED DAVISON, I THOUGHT THEY WERE A LEGIT TRUST WORTHY COMPANY. THAT THEY WOULD LISTEN TO MY CONCERNS AND ALLOW ME TO PARTICIPATE IN DESIGNING MY OWN IDEA. THE IDEA I WAS PAYING THEM TO DEVELOP. LATER WHEN I DISCOVERED DAVISONS  HORRIBLE TREATMENT OF THEIR CLIENTS, I BROUGHT THAT TO ROBERT B[redacted]S ATTENTION AND HE JUST SCOFFED  AND SAID, "OH PEOPLE CAN WRITE ANYTHING THEY WANT ON THE INTERNET."BUT AS TIME WENT BY IT WAS CLEAR ABOUT DAVISONS REPUTATION AND I FOUND MORE AND MORE HORROR STORIES FROM DAVISON CLIENTS. ALSO BECAUSE DAVISON HAD A VERY LARGE SUM OF MY MONEY, I TRUSTED THAT THEY HAD MY BEST INTEREST AT HEART. BUT LATER REALIZED THEY WERE ONLY ON THE TAKE. EVERYTHING WRITTEN INTO DAVISONS CONTRACTS IS DESIGN TO TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF THE CLIENT AND GIVE ALL RIGHTS TO DAVISON. WHAT I DID NOT KNOW PRIOR TO SIGNING WITH DAVISON WAS HOW I WOULD BE TREATED MY THEM??? IN THE END IT WAS CLEAR DAVISON WAS ONLY OUT FOR THEMSELVES. EXPLOITING PEOPLE FOR THEIR IDEAS AND MONEY. DAVISON IS NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH ANYONES IDEAS, OR THEIR MONEY. ONE OF THE TACTICS DAVISON USES IS THE CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE, ABOUT NOT DISCUSSING THE IDEA WITH ANYONE! WHILE  IT IS REASONABLE TO NOT PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE SENSITIVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, THE PRIVACY ALSO KEEPS THE CLIENT IN ISOLATION AND ALLOWS DAVISON TO DO THEIR DIRTY WORK WITH OUT ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUTSIDE PEOPLE LIKE CONCERNED FAMILY OR FRIENDS, WHO MIGHT BE CONCERNED OR SUGGEST AN ATTORNEY GET INVOLVED. NO OFFER WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE BY DAVISON ACCEPT A REFUND OF MY MONEY. DAVISON DID VERY LITTLE WORK FOR THE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY I GAVE THEM. THERE WAS NO CREATIVITY IN THIS PROCESS, IT WAS ALL LEGALISTIC. THEY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR MY CONCERNS. THEY WROTE A CONTRACT THAT ONLY PROTECTED THEM. PLUS THEIR PERFORMANCE IS DISMAL. THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED. ALSO WHEN I FOUND DAVSION HAD LOST A CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT TO THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION IN 2008/9 FOR $26,000,000 MILLION DOLLARS BUT SETTLED FOR $10.6,000,000 MILLION THAT WAS EVIDENCE ENOUGH.  I REALIZED I WAS NOT ALONE IN THE DECEPTIVE TREATMENT BY DAVISON. MY TRUST IN THEM AND THEIR SERVICES IS TOTALLY GONE.

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

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         March 12, 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 03/07/2018.  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, Davison provided its services with Mr. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  Further, those services were performed to his documented satisfaction.  There is no basis for his complaint, much less a refund.   At the outset it bears noting that the services for Mr. [redacted] were completed by July 2015.  Now, more than two 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 service contracts.  Specifically, he entered a Pre-Development and Representation Agreement (PD), a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA), and an Inventomercial Agreement.  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.  The Inventomercial Agreement was for the creation of presentation video for his product idea.  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 two questionnaires providing positive feedback; one about the design and a second 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.    In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges that the presentation material did not include the “right information” about his product idea.  This position is directly contradicted by his signed approval of the design, his signed authorization to proceed with the presentation, and his signed questionnaires, in which he provided positive feedback.  It is simply unreasonable to now allege dissatisfaction with the services, years after completion of those services, when at the time the services were provided they met with his express written satisfaction.   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.  There is no basis for his complaint.  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.   Enclosures

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] on orabout 09/24/2015, in regard to the above referenced complaint. As stated in the original response,services were completed with his express written approval and authorization, and to hisdocumented satisfaction. Mr. [redacted] continues to misrepresent the scope of services to supporthis claim for a refund. He contends the Integrated Product Rendering Agreement was to include“full product details that what materials and parts needed to produce this product and alsoDavison will do the packaging for the product...” This contention is contrary to the disclosureprovided to Mr. [redacted] before any contact for service was entered and contrary to the terms ofthe Integrated Product Rendering contract.Mr. [redacted] submitted his idea for a new product through Davison’s website. The systemDavison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit an ideawithout first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and theperson electronically acknowledging the disclosures. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via anelectronic signature on 07/17/2014, at 15:16:13 from IP address [redacted], that he receivedand read 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. Thedisclosures detail, among other items, the scope of services offered by the various contracts.With regard to the Second Phase Agreements, the disclosure specifies distinct contracts withdistinct services. Specifically, the disclosure details;“(a) New Product Sample Agreement- Davison offers to professionally design and construct a productsample, graphics, packaging and presentation materials;(b) Integrated Product Rendering agreement- Davison offers to prepare design images and graphicssuitable for presentation of the idea;”Further, the terms of the Integrated Product Rendering Agreement states: “1) 1 Preparation ofRendering: Drafts are prepared by the Art Department to depict the product.” It is clear from thedisclosure and the contract terms that the Integrated Product Rendering agreement offers thepreparation of images and graphics, not a physical product sample and complete specifications. Acopy of the disclosure and the electronic signature data documenting Mr. [redacted]’sacknowledgment of the disclosures are enclosed. Note the specific details of the submitted ideahave been redacted for confidentiality purposes.to the further pursuit of a license agreement supports his position. Again, hemisrepresents the terms. This form is a standard form used for all projects at Davison, regardlessof whether the specific service agreement was a New Product Sample Agreement, an IntegratedProduct Rendering Agreement or a Custom Agreement. Further, the form states; “If required forpresentation or requested by the targeted corporation, Davison will perform the following:”Accordingly, the applicability of the services detailed varies depending upon the specific project.Finally, Mr. [redacted]’s concerns over the documentation of the e-mailed presentation ofhis project are spurious. The documents provided clearly evidence the presentation and thecorporation’s response. Davison has no control over the e-mailing policies and procedures ofother corporations.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.In the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will continue to honor its prior offer of 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.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] againstDavison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 11/27/2016. Customer concerns upseteveryone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to aminimum. However,...

it is difficult to address concerns that are not based on the facts. As will be detailed,the services have been performed with her express written approval and authorization; the services wereperformed to her documented satisfaction; and her product was licensed. There is simply no basis for hercomplaint, or for her demand for a refund.Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison in 2012. She contracted for, and received, the initial researchservices, then entered an agreement for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging andpresentation material. A proposed design was submitted for her approval. She approved the design andcompleted a questionnaire about the design, providing positive feedback. Based upon her approval, thephysical sample and other materials were constructed. She was provided an Executive Summary detailingthe product, which included an actual photograph of the physical sample. Ms. [redacted] authorized thepresentation of her product idea and completed a second questionnaire, again with nothing but positivefeedback. The corporation to whom her idea was presented chose not to license the idea. Subsequently, in2015, the idea was presented to, and licensed by, another corporation. Ms. [redacted] signed the licenseagreement in June 2015. Inexplicably, in June 2016, Ms. [redacted] submitted a letter demanding a full refund.Davison contacted her to discuss her concerns, however she would not engage in a conversation. Thiscomplaint followed.As stated, all services were performed with Ms. [redacted]’s approval and to her satisfaction. Herallegation that Davison has breached its contractual duties is simply baseless. Her allegation that she wasdissatisfied with the design is contradicted by her approval and completed questionnaire. Her allegationthat Davison had agreed, in August 2015, to modify the product design when the product was alreadylicensed is not logical. Finally, her allegation that Davison’s performance of services would support civiland criminal actions is inflammatory. There is no basis for her complaint, and no basis for her demand fora refund. Enclosed, please find copies of the referenced approval, authorization, questionnaires andacknowledgment of the license agreement. Note the actual approved design has been redacted forconfidentiality purposes.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] on orabout 11 17/20 15, in regard to the above referenced complaint. As stated in both prior responses, serviceswere completed with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.Mr. [redacted] continues to misrepresent the scope of services to support his claim for a refund. Simplystated, he contracted for the creation of a product rendering to depict his new product idea. He did notcontract for the construction of a physical product sample.Mr. [redacted] attempts to use the fact that he submitted two separate ideas to Davison as a means toconfuse the issues. As stated in the prior response, he first submitted an idea on 07 17/2014. This initialsubmission he entitled “[redacted]”. His second submitted idea, “[redacted]” wassubmitted on 07/21/2014. The reference to his initial submission in the prior response was simply todocument the earliest time at which he was provided the two disclosure forms. No services were engagedfor the first submission, the subsequent contracts related to his second submission. Enclosed, please find alisting of the five (5) submissions made by Mr. [redacted], the final three apparently were in connection withhis complaint.Again, the central issue of Mr. [redacted]’s complaint arises from an apparent misunderstanding as tothe scope of services covered by the Integrated Product Rendering Presentation agreement. The languagein the contract, from its title to the specific terms, is clear that a graphic representation of his product idea,i.e. a rendering, depiction, design, was to be developed. No term refers to the construction of a physicalproduct sample. 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 targeted corporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that factdoes not negate the provided services. In the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will continue tohonor its prior offer of two additional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. If he chooses to accept thisoffer, he need only contact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork toauthorize the presentations.Sincerely,David  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 12/18/2015. Davisonunderstands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful business. Customer...

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

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about08/11/2015. 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 upfront with its clients about the servicesand fees. As will be detailed below, Mr. [redacted] was provided explicit, clear disclosuresof the scope of services and the relevant fees, which he acknowledged having receivedand read. He contracted for the pre-development services which were provided to hissatisfaction. Additional services were offered, which he declined. There is no basis for arefund for services rendered to Mr. [redacted]’ documented satisfaction.Mr. [redacted]’ statement does have a thread of truth running through it, but isreplete with inaccuracies and simply disregards numerous facts. The result being, hisstatement creates a false representation of Davison’s process. Below is a summary of theevents, with supporting documentation, to provide an accurate description of his project.Mr. [redacted] submitted his idea to Davison on 03/15 2015, not 05 01 2015 asstated in his complaint. The system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes itimpossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosuresdisplayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledgingthe disclosures. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature on 03/15/2015, at14:04:47 from IP address [redacted], that he received and read the two disclosurestatements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Cliententers any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures isthe statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract inconnection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the variousservices and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing theservices, as well as the data record documenting his electronic acknowledgement.Following his submission, a representative of Davison contacted Mr. [redacted] todiscuss whether the services offered by Davison would be of interest to him. Contrary tohis statement, this call is not made by the company CEO. Rather, there is a designateddepartment that follows up with individuals who have submitted their idea to confirm thesubmission and discuss the offer of services. Mr. [redacted] entered into the initial predevelopment service agreement which obligated Davison to compile research data relatedto his product idea. Davison completed the services and forwarded the compiled researchto him on or about 05/28/2015. Mr. [redacted] completed a questionnaire about this servicein which he provided positive feedback and acknowledged that the research was“prepared in accordance with my contract for this service.” A copy of his questionnairesigned and dated 06 03 2015 is attached.The Pre-Development Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section 11 B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining aproduct sample, packaging and relevant information about the product in aprofessional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services, under aseparate 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 toobtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them at all...”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures thatMr. [redacted] acknowledged, Davison offered additional services for the development ofhis project. This contract outlined the services for the design and construction of aphysical product sample, packaging and presentation materials. The contract provided aselection of four payment options, which were consistent with the fee disclosure he hadpreviously acknowledged. Mr. [redacted] has declined these additional services, which ishis prerogative.As stated, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related feesoffered by Davison, BEFORE he entered into any contract. To the extent he was notaware of the additional services and fees; it was not due to a lack of disclosure byDavison. The services for which there existed a contract have been performed to Mr.[redacted]’ documented satisfaction. No additional contracts have been entered and noadditional payments have been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund forservices rendered.David ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

As I waiting for 1 year 3 ~4 months, I believe I have met their waiting ,be patient, we’ll get back with yourequirements ,of there so called contract ... Which their atty states in his letter to you the process is atime consuming process,,,, and involves numerous steps ????? as I have told them one or more at thisDavison company ,that we are not building a ROCKET and they had my approval to move on. Nowthat’s the simple truth.... Also a design was sent in September to me, but totally different frommy idea. I wrote on it, that not all, my features were on the design ....their phone guy Eric called andsaid that there attys do not want you to write anything on it, now this is week or so later so I wait fornew papers of the same,,, one month later 10-1920161 get it, sign it, get it out, to get this simple littleproject going,,, and it was not { MARCH01 2016 } that David d[redacted] has said ???... That I finally got itand sent it back????? As I was eager to see something happen ...February, march and on I was calling forupdates, only to get voice mail, you only talk to them if they make the call. So I wait two weeks, threeweeks no call ,when this Eric guy, he says their still trying to get the proper department to SEW andother stalling tactics , template problems ,with their cad machines or whatever high tech rhetoricthey use ,to sew a piece of cloth must be something to see ,this wonderful material put together.I did my part I paid their money game with deadlines etc. I let them change my idea to make it simplefor their departments with no moving, confusing parts. I waited very patiently ,design problems,material problems material research, etc.... I HAD An IDEA THEY SAD THEY COULD HELP. ???? So withthat in mind and a rather simple item to build. I trusted them to do their part the item they wantedto make and I reluctantly agreed, could have been done in my garage in a week maybe not as pretty astheirs, but I who is mechanically inclined could have done it, but I thought I would let them do it, withthere????! Expertise??????/ And knowledge of possible manufactures ....hoping good could come of this....when this all started Eric said great working with you if you have any questions call??? I did but waitedawhile for a responseThis company seemed like a good sell with their ads and other advertisement looked Iegit??After 6months, 8 months, 1 year, Eric was not coming up with answers that made sence??? And at thiswonderful, high tech, helped so many people company, with their smart engineering team can’t build aLAWN CHAIR??????? Ever hear the saying something ,,, smells.. I was getting that before calling theirMANAGEMENT PEOPLE ,A FRANK V[redacted] ,JOHN D[redacted] AND DAVID D[redacted] SPELLING OF NAMES MAYBE NOT RIGHT... AND WHO THEY ARE,, I AM NOT SURE, BUT CONVERSATIONWAS WERE MADE 4-7-2016 AND 5-13-2016 ...I COULD NOT TALK TO THE OWNER GEORGE D[redacted]..????The MISCHARACTERIZATION of service in David d[redacted] s letter????? I was simply saying that I wouldlike them to help me put this to the market,, as I knew up front there is no assurance of that but as Ericcalled saying we have exciting news we may have a manufacture that will look at it and he said ,there isa little process ,which I knew. I SAID HELP ME PUT THIS IN THE MARKET .... NOT THAT I contracted toput this in the market??! I KNEW THAT AFTER TALKING TO ERIC, THEY ONLY SUBMITTO THE MARKETPLACE ... if it’s feasible ...SO WERE HE GOES WITH WORDS HERE IS NOT CORRECT. And on the scampart of Davison reviews I believe I saw someone said that Davison owns hugs pet products?? I do notknow??? if you say no so be it ,,, but I said to David d[redacted] that! believe not all the scam remarks weretrue ,and would work with him it I saw results, he said he would push it up the ladder to speed it up orso, nothing.. Only a call 6-9-2016 ,from Eric whom I had asked to not talk to,’”as I get no were withhim “.. to say same still stitching,, not sounding very helpful, short talk will know more in coupleweeks ,again nothingAnd also finding hugs pet products shares the same building is convenient for Eric to say got great news Ifound a company that is willing to look at your item???? No more calls ....I have called... and no callbadk. I gave them plenty of time to call, get the simple project done Do as a reputable companywould do, be honest ,stay in contact ,answer calls ,work with their client and show integrity ....I tooktheir word that they would help putting this little idea together . They did not fulfill their end of thedeal, all there, stalling, no return calls, no help, and same excuses, will not get this something companyon the good guy list of companies in the Pittsburg areaI SIGNED THERE QUESTIONAIRE: but on 4-27-2015 .at the time in early stages it’s all show to any one, itlooked to be legit, at the time. As I said it was helpful, this is day one of our so called agreement. ONEyear 334 months later whole different story.. Now that they had my $$$$ money $$$$.George Davison this is not right,, what you and your people do to the very people who give youtheir hard earned money,and put their trust in your company . YOU and I know that to take this long1 YEAR 334 MONTHS“to build this idea, a rather simple one, and expensive, is totally unheardof,, not good ,, / do you really help people with ideas ..Or say you do???? With your fancy adds ....Nowthat I know what kind of company I’m dealing with.. I AM DEMANDING ALL MY MONEY BACK.... NOW$ 11,485.00.... You did not do a thing for me. As you well know, your people do not answer callsonly at their convenience ,they stall ,they give excuses ,same ones by the way ... GOT SEWINGPROBLEMS GO TO A TAILOR LOT FASTER ....they say one thing, LIKE...WE,LL help move this threw, alltalk nothing gets done. I tried to work with you and your people but got nothing in return .... If you gotany good within yourself you will do the right thing. NOW, I am waiting not very patiently for my moneyback. YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT IF NOT LET ME KNOW I CERTAINLY KNOW. $ 11,485.00, FOR A YEARAND 334 MONTHS OF YOUR “propaganda[redacted]

I would like to make a fair sugestion. I see that Davidson/Inventionland site they are a fee for service business. We are only in section 1 page one of the sales agreement. Can you ask them how much of the payment ive made are they willing to refund? Any part of the funds ive paid and relinquinshment of any rights to the invention can be discussed. Ask Davidson to make an offer and ill review.Thanks

February 23, 2017Re: [redacted]Your ID#: [redacted]Dear Ms. [redacted];This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint. As stated in the initial response of 01/23/2017, Davison has performed all services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. Without reiterating the contents of that initial response, the additional issues raised by Mr. [redacted] will be addressed.Mr. [redacted] alleges he was “required” to pay additional fees, implying some form of misrepresentation about the cost and scope of services. This is not factual. Davison offers a variety of services which the client may choose to accept or not. Davison discloses all the services and fees BEFORE a client enters any service contract. Mr. [redacted] first contacted Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 05/03/2013. 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. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr. [redacted]. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 05/03/2013 at 13:34:18 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. There is no basis to support a claim of non-disclosure of the services and fees.Mr. [redacted] again raises concerns over the non-performance of patent services. Though addressed in the initial response, it warrants repeating - Davison is not a law firm, it does not provide patent services or any other legal service. The contracts are explicitly clear that the application for any intellectual property protection is the sole responsibility of the client. Also, as previously noted, Mr. [redacted] had filed his patent application BEFORE he ever contacted Davison. His continued complaints on this matter are simply baseless.Finally, Mr. [redacted] raises concerns over a second product idea that he had submitted to Davison. He submitted the idea on 02/11/2015; entered in the initial predevelopment contract; and those services were performed. Consistent with the disclosures and contract terms, Davison offered additional services for the further development of the idea. That service offering is the contract provided with Mr. [redacted]’ comments. However, Mr. [redacted] did not enter into this agreement; as such no services were performed. If he would like to engage those services, Davison remains willing and able to provide them. It is not reasonable to complain about the non-performance of services when a client has decided not to enter the contract for those services.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’ express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunate that the targeted corporations chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services. The simple fact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain. The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided. There is no basis to warrant a refund. Davison will continue to honor its offer of 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 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 1 2 /1 3 /2 0 1 5 . Weunderstand that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful business....

Customer concerns upset everyone and our sta f f works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time o f an initialcontact, through the research and development o f a new product idea, to the presentation o f ac lien t’s idea, we try to maintain an open channel o f communication, disclosing our services andfees upfront and securing our c lien ts ’ approval and authorization throughout the process.Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly whentheir product ideas are not licensed. That appears to be the simple truth with Mr. [redacted].Mr. [redacted] first contacted Davison in August 2 0 1 0 by submitting an idea for a newproduct. He entered the initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compileresearch on U.S. Patents and products, on the market at that time, which were similar to his idea.This research was completed in 2 0 1 0 . In March 2 0 1 1 , he contracted for the design andconstruction o f a physical product sample. A design was created and submitted for his approval.He provided his signed approval o f the design in August 2 0 1 1 . A copy o f this approval isenclosed; note, the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Based on hisapproval, the physical sample was constructed and presentation material created. In January2 0 1 2 , Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation o f his new product idea. Enclosed please find acopy o f his signed authorization. The new product idea was presented to the designatedcorporation who declined to enter a license.Following the rejection o f his idea by the corporation, Mr. [redacted] raised concerns overthe design o f the product sample. Davison’s Office o f the President worked closely andextensively with Mr. [redacted] to address his concerns. Despite having no contractual obligation todo so, Davison agreed to re-design the product sample. A revised design was created andsubmitted for Mr. [redacted] ’s approval. On or about January 11, 2 0 1 5 , he approved this seconddesign and completed a questionnaire about the design in which he provided positive feedback.Enclosed is a copy o f this approval and completed questionnaire. Again, based upon thisapproval, a second product sample was constructed. This second product sample was provided toMr. [redacted]. Following his receipt o f the second product sample, he again raised concerns overthe design, alleging similarities with existing products. The Office o f the President has requested he return the sample along with any comments he may have so that there could befurther discussions to address his concerns. There has been no response from Mr. [redacted], otherthan the current complaint.It bears noting that Mr. [redacted]’s project has been developing over the course o f morethan five years. Davison is not, and can not, be aware o f every idea for a new product thatanyone, anywhere might have or develop. It is not uncommon for multiple individuals toconceive o f the same or similar idea independently. The contracts which Mr. [redacted] enteredexplicitly state;M. Davison cannot be aware of, and is not responsible for, the existence o f every similar productor idea that may already be in the global market, in development by others, or introduced by othersat a later time.O. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea asconceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible...Davison developed both designs and subsequent product samples with Mr. [redacted]’sexpress written approval and authorization. Davison has gone above and beyond its contractualobligations to address any concern o f Mr. [redacted]. While it is unfortunate that the targetedcorporation did not license his idea, that does not provide a basis for a refund. The fact that otherproducts have been developed by others which are similar to his idea does not provide a basis fora refund to Mr. [redacted]. Davison remains willing to work with Mr. [redacted]. I f he chooses tocontinue to pursue his project, he may contact the Office o f the President at his convenience.Davison 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 05/17/2017.  Ms. [redacted] has been a valued client since contacting Davison in May 2014, and all services have been completed by August...

2015.  Now, nearly two years after the completion of services, she files this complaint.  Regrettably, her complaint is a defamatory mischaracterization of the services provided and it does not contain any factual support.  As will be detailed below, Davison disclosed all the risks, services and fees in advance, and performed its services with Ms. [redacted]’s express written approval and authorization.  There is no basis to support her demand for a refund, much less to support her defamatory statements. The new product development process is a high risk venture.  There is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed, much less a guarantee of a financial gain.  Davison goes to great lengths to disclose the risks to all individuals who may submit an idea for a new product.  In addition to disclosing all of its services and fees upfront, the historical success rates of securing a license and of realizing a financial gain are provided.   The contracts for services repeatedly provide disclosures that there is no guarantee that a product will be licensed, or that a client will realize a financial gain.  When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison.  Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations.              Ms. [redacted] submitted her idea to Davison through its website on 05/27/2014.  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.  She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 05/27/2014 at 20:20:00 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Ms. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement.  The services were performed with her express written approval and authorization.  She approved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentation.  Copies of her signed approval and authorization are enclosed.  (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) She also completed a questionnaire about the design in which she provided positive feedback.  A copy of the questionnaire is enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Ms. [redacted] declined.  At this point, all contracted services had been completed and Ms. [redacted]’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided.   On at least three separate occasions, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison to inquire on the status of her project.  In each instance, the offer of additional presentation services was made, those services were declined, and the “reactive” status was explained.  These conversations occurred on 05/14/2015, 11/10/2015 and 05/18/2016.  The last conversation was with the President of Davison.               In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Ms. [redacted], her signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaire, 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 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.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         December 14, 2017                 Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]     Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint. Ms. [redacted] states that she emailed Ms. Vicky B[redacted] requesting information about a contact in the Licensing Department.  Please note that Ms. B[redacted] is the contact person. Ms. B[redacted] has called and spoke with Ms. [redacted] on December 8, 2017.   Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

The document Davison Design showed to you was sent to them, (at their request) AFTER the documents I've attached to this e-mail, and after a phone call to John D'Alessio where I again went into detail about the unacceptable errors pertaining to the design specs that I received from them.  The document that they sent to you was requested from us AFTER John D'Alessio promised, during our phone call, to make all the changes I said were necessary.   Upon receiving the completed prototype it was obvious that NOT ONE of the changes I deemed necessary were made.  Because Davison DID NOT follow my design specs is the reason why the prospective buyer turned down my idea.  The product they made is NOT easy to install or to remove and it causes PERMANENT damage to the vehicle.  If they had followed my design specs correctly, the final product would have been very easily installed and easily removed WITHOUT CAUSING ANY DAMAGE TO THE VEHICLE at all.  Davison Design has misled and scammed hundreds of people out of thousands of dollars and he will continue to do this unless he is held accountable.  I want my $11,795.00 returned to me. [redacted]

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄   March 14, 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 stated in the prior two responses, Davison has performed all services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.  Again, without a lengthy reiteration of matters covered in the prior responses, his comments will be addressed.   His additional comments note that he made partial payment toward the New Product Sample Agreement which he did not enter.  This has been confirmed and a full refund has been provided.  Enclosed, please find a copy of the e-mail sent to Mr. [redacted] providing the refund receipt.  As to the remaining comments, they are a continuation of the previously addressed issues.  I spoke with Mr. [redacted] in an effort to clarify matters, though he continues to be confused as to the nature and scope of the services provided.   Simply stated, he had two projects.  He entered the initial pre-development contract for both projects and received the research materials for both.  For one project he was offered a New Product Sample Agreement for the design and construction of a physical product sample, packaging and presentation materials.  He did not enter this agreement and the monies he paid have been refunded.   For the other project he entered an Integrated Product Rendering agreement for the creation of a visual depiction of his product idea and presentation material.  As stated in the prior responses, these services were performed with his express written approval and authorization.  Mr. [redacted] also completed questionnaires about these services in which he provided positive feedback.  It bears noting that the Integrated Product Rendering agreement does not provide for the construction of a physical product sample.  Mr. [redacted] also entered an agreement for the creation of a video of his product idea.  This was completed and provided to him on or about 01/14/2014.  He confirmed his receipt of the video on 01/23/2014.  A total of three presentations of his product idea were made, each with his express written authorization.  Unfortunately, no corporation chose to license his product idea.    As stated, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’ express written approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction.  While it is unfortunate that the targeted corporations chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services.  The simple fact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard.  While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided.  There is no basis to warrant a refund.    Mr. [redacted] has declined Davison’s offer of additional services which were offered at no cost to him.  He has requested to terminate his relationship with Davison.  Accordingly his file has been closed.     Sincerely,     David M. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosure

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. R[redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 12/23/20 16.The gravamen of his complaint is that his project is not “making money”, implying some form ofa guarantee of a financial gain. The...

reality is that the product development process provides noguarantees of financial gain. The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. From thetime of an initial contact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to thepresentation of a client’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing theservices, fees and historical licensing data upfront and securing the client’s approval andauthorization 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 andrisks. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly whentheir product ideas are not licensed.Mr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its websiteon 02/21/2011. 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. [redacted] the disclosures is a detailedstatement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project. Heacknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosures.Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 02/21/2011 at 00:03:16EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.Mr. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development andRepresentation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement. The services wereperformed with his express written approval and authorization. He approved the design of hisproduct sample and authorized its presentation. Copies of his signed approval and authorizationare enclosed. (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.)He also completed a questionnaire in which he provided positive feedback. A copy of thatquestionnaire is enclosed. The product idea was presented to the designated company who chosenot to license the product idea. An offer of the additional service to make an additionalpresentation was declined by Mr. [redacted], which is his prerogative. This complaint followed.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] makes numerous incorrect claims; one that he was toldDavison would patent his product idea; two, that he would get a license and make money from hisidea, and three that the development of his product sample was not to his satisfaction. As will bedetailed, these claims are contrary to the facts.Patents: Davison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services or other legalservices. Such services are not listed in the disclosures, nor are they contained in the contractterms. To the contrary, the contracts explicitly states;Disclosures;No legal service, whether it is patent filing or any other legal service, is listed on the disclosuresdetailing the various services offered by Davison.Pre-development Agreement;“II. B Davison is not responsible for applying for or obtaining any intellectual propertyprotections on the Product or Design, including but not limited to patents, trademarks and tradenames.”New Product Sample Agreement;“I. F The Client is solely responsible for the sufficiency, completion and submission of any finalapplication, United States Patent & Trademark Office form PTO/SB/ 16, and any other patent ortrademark applications that may be necessary.”“4. J. iii)... Davison is not a law firm. Davison is not providing, and Client is not relying uponDavison for, legal advice. Client acknowledges that he/she is responsible for patenting hismer Ideaand that Davison has made no representations concerning the patentability of the Idea or its ultimatedesign.”To the extent Mr. [redacted] believes this service was included in his contract, he is mistakenthrough no fault of Davison.Product license: The simple truth is; there is no guarantee that a particular product ideawill be licensed, much less a guarantee of a financial gain. Davison does not provide evaluationsof the commercial potential of a product idea, much less any form of guarantee that a particularproduct will be licensed. Davison goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients. Mr.[redacted] was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in;Disclosures:“Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...”The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the numberof clients who have received a financial gain are provided.Pre-Development Agreement:“Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or wan~anty that Davison will be able toconsummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or herproduct and/or design. Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerningthe potential of Client’s Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for Client.Davison has not evaluated the Product;”New Product Sample Agreement:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive anyfinancial gain from the development of the Idea.”“Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Ideaand that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone. Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if thetargeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed. Clientacknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing,marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Product Sample: It is important to note that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer thatcreates a product sample based upon the client’s preconceived notions. Davison is a design anddevelopment firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to theproblem identified by the client. The New Product Sample Agreement explicitly states thefollowing;“I. A. iv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team “brainstorming’ sessions will be held to uncoverproduct design solutions that blend with the targeted corporations manufacturing capabilities. Theergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process oftenresults 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 Clients proposeddesign is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect currentmanufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market....4. 0. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived andsubmitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in themanner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client... This Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sampleto be produced.”In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Mr. [redacted], his signed approval,signed authorization and signed questionnaire, any alleged complaint is simply not credible.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 08/31/2017.  At the outset, please note that Ms. [redacted] identified herself as [redacted], accordingly all relevant documents...

reference her by that name. 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]’ 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.  In the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison offered additional services at no cost to Ms. [redacted].  Contrary to her complaint, at no time did Davison offer a refund, as services were completed per the terms of the contracts.                  Ms. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 07/15/2014 and again on 08/22/2014.  The electronic submission system utilized by Davison m[redacted] 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 m[redacted] any payment to Davison.  Among the disclosures is a detailed listing of all services offered and their related fees, and a statement of the historical track record of securing a license for a client project.  She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data records confirming her acknowledgements, and a copy of the fee disclosure.  Note the submitted ideas have been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Ms. [redacted] entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement.  The services were performed with her express written approval and authorization.  She approved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentation.  Copies of her e-mailed approval and signed authorization are enclosed.  She also completed a questionnaire about the presentation material, in which she provided positive feedback.  A copy of that questionnaire is enclosed.  The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea.  Ms. [redacted] was offered additional services for an additional presentation, which she declined.  After the completion of all services, Ms. [redacted] expressed her dissatisfaction of the process and demanded a complete re-design of her product sample, a guarantee of a license, or a full refund.  Davison explained that there was no basis for her demands.  Despite having no obligation, and purely in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison offered, at no cost to Ms. [redacted], two additional presentations and to create an additional product rendering incorporating features to her specifications.  Ms. [redacted] declines this offer, and filed this complaint.   In her complaint, she m[redacted] a number of inaccurate statements which will be addressed; Evaluations:    She alleges that Davison “approved an accepted” her idea submission.  To the extent she implies there was an evaluation of her idea, she is mistaken.  Davison does not evaluate idea submissions for commercial potential.  The disclosures and contract terms are explicit in this regard;   Disclosures:  “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...”         The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided.                  Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design.  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. Davison has not evaluated the Product;”   New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”   “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone.  Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.  Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”   Marketing:  She alleges that Davison was to “market” her idea; this is incorrect.  Davison is not a manufacturer and does not “market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public.  Davison designs and develops product ideas for presentation to corporations in an effort to secure a license for the client.  It is those subsequent corporations, who manufacture and market the product.  Product Sample:  She complains that the product sample designed by Davison differed from her initial concept.  To the extent she believes she contracted for the construction of a prototype built to her specifications, she is mistaken.  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 she 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.”               Fees:  She alleges that Davison continually requested more money throughout the process.  She is incorrect.  All fees were fully disclosed to her prior to entering any contract.  Within each contract, the fee for the specific service is clearly stated.  It is not possible to be more upfront and transparent about the fees for the specific services.     Corporate Interest:  She alleges that during the development stage, she was informed that a corporation was interested in her idea. She is mistaken.  When she submitted her idea, she did so by entering a Confidentially 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.”  Davison t[redacted] the obligation of confidentiality seriously, and abides by the terms of the Agreement.  As part of the Pre-Development agreement, a corporation is selected and identified to a client.  At that stage, there is no product sample or presentation material created as yet, and no authorization has been secured from the client to disclose their idea.  As such, the designated company can not express interest in a specific product that has not yet been presented to them.  The letter identifying the corporation contains the statement; “Davison has not provided to it [the selected corporation] any information concerning your idea at this stage.”  Again, to the extent Ms. [redacted] believes the targeted corporation had expressed an interest in her specific product prior to a presentation of her product idea; she is mistaken, through no fault of Davison.     Offer of refund:  Her allegation that Davison offered to refund her money is incorrect.  As stated above, when she expressed her dissatisfaction (after all services were completed and the corporation declined to license her idea), Davison offered the additional services as previously detailed.  In an e-mail dated March 28, 2017, Davison outlined the situation to her indicating her demands (“Primary options”) and Davison’s offer (“Additional options”).  Ms. [redacted]’ attempt to construe this as an agreement to refund her money is not reasonable.  A copy of the e-mail is attached.               In light of the disclosures, the approval, the authorization, and the questionnaire, there is simply no support for her complaint.  Her request for a refund is not reasonable.  Purely in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison had previously offered a series of services at no cost to Ms. [redacted].  She has declined that offer.  Davison will continue to honor that offer should she decide to accept.   Sincerely,     David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.