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 06/12/20 16.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 its services and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simplywritten, with no “fine print” provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorization. Itis not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development oftheir project. Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularlywhen their product ideas are not licensed. That appears to be the simple truth with Ms.[redacted]. A review of her file indicates that all services were completed with her expressapproval and authorization. Further, the services met with her documented satisfaction. There isno basis for a refund, nor support for her complaint.Ms. [redacted] submitted an idea through Davison’s website. The electronic submissionsystem utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having twoseparate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that thedisclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seekmore than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting of the various services and related fees, as well as the historical licensing data. Enclosed,please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented toMs. [redacted]. She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and readthese disclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on07/13/2014 at 14:58:24 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary follows. She entered theinitial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents andproducts, on the market at that time, which were similar to her idea. This research was completedand provided to her. In November 2014, after completion of the initial service, she contracted forthe design and construction of a physical product sample. An initial design was created andsubmitted for her approval. Ms. [redacted] provided her written approval of the design on orabout February 09, 2015 and completed a questionnaire about the design providing positiveTurning ideas into productsDavison RiDC Park 595 Aipha Drive Pittsbu gh A 15238 2911 w.v.v Davison corn • Tell 866 Davison • Fax I 800,540 5490 • iniernational 412599 1234 • Fax 412 967 0794DAVISONfeedback. A copy of her signed approval and completed questionnaire is enclosed. Note theactual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Based on her approval,the physical sample was constructed and presentation material created. An Executive Briefing,which included a photograph of the constructed product sample, was provided to her for review.On or about June 08, 2015, Ms. [redacted] authorized the presentation of her new product ideaand completed a questionnaire about the Executive Briefing in which she provided positivefeedback. Copies of her authorization and completed questionnaire are enclosed. On or aboutSeptember 16, 2015, her new product idea was presented to the designated corporation whodeclined to enter a license. Ms. [redacted] declined the offer to make additional presentations,deciding to take a “reactive approach” in which Davison would wait for a corporation to approachthem seeking a product similar to her idea. No additional services are due to be performed.In her complaint, Ms. [redacted] makes numerous incorrect statements. First, she statesDavison was to “help me find a license agreement”. To the extent she implies a guarantee ofsecuring a license, she is mistaken. The simple fact is; the product development process providesno guarantees of financial gain and Davison does not make such guarantees. The express termsof the contracts are explicit that Davison make no representation about the likelihood of financialgain. The contract which Ms. [redacted] entered contains the following provisions:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financialgain from the development of the Idea.”“Client acknowledges that. ..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 norepresentations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Secondly, she alleges to have only received 4 pieces of paper, implying Davison has notperformed its services. That is incorrect. As stated above, she received the initial researchmaterial in a Product Portfolio. The Executive Briefing included an actual photograph of theconstructed product sample. The contract states that the client intends Davison to retainpossession of the product sample, unless requested by the client. Ms. [redacted] has not requestedthe sample.Next, she alleges she received no confirmation of the presentation. That is incorrect. Asstated above, the presentation was made on September 16, 2015. Ms. [redacted] was informed ofthis fact on September 18, 2015. Status calls with her were made on November 4, 2015,December 23, 2015, Januaiy 20, 2016, March 29, 2016 and May 02, 2016. Davison can notcompel another corporation to disclose the basis of its decision to pursue or not to pursue aparticular product idea. If such information is made available, it is provided to the client. If it isnot made available, Davison can not provide to the client information which is not provided fromthe targeted corporation. While the lack of a substantive response from the targeted corporationis understandably frustrating, that does not support her claim that she was not informed of thepresentation.Finally, she states that Davison will not speak to her without her making additionalpayments. This is a mischaracterization. Davison has completed all of the services for which shecontracted. Those services have been done with her approval, with her authorization, and to herdocumented satisfaction. Davison has offered additional services which she has declined. Theseadditional services were fully disclosed to her BEFORE she entered any contract for service.Davison would welcome the opportunity to continue with her project, however if she declines theoffer of services, that is her decision.As stated, Ms. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and related fees BEFORE sheentered any contract. The services have been performed with her express written approval andauthorization, and 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.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                           April 13, 2017                 Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]                                    Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] regarding the above referenced complaint.  As stated in the prior two responses, Davison performed its services at Ms. [redacted]’s direction, with her approval, and to her documented satisfaction.  The product sample that was created was precisely the product concept that she had submitted. Without a lengthy reiteration of matters covered in the prior responses, her comments will be addressed.    In her additional comments, Ms. [redacted] misrepresents the scope of services set forth in the contract. Her comments disregard the very first sentence of the contract under the “Services Provided” section.  That first sentence states; “During the term of the Agreement, Davison's professional development services will include some or all of the following…” The contract then lists all services that may be relevant to any client project.  However, not all listed services are relevant to a particular project.  For example, the contract states that a Circuit Design will be provided when applicable.  Many projects, like Ms. [redacted]’s, are not electronic in nature and there is no need for a Circuit Design.  Regardless of the specific services provided, the contract explicitly states what is to be delivered to the client.  Her contract specifically details; “The items to be delivered for Client's possession pursuant to this Agreement are the Integrated Product Rendering and the Executive Summary. Client intends that Davison will retain possession of the product and packaging sample, unless Client requests otherwise in writing.”    Davison has gone beyond its contractual obligations in a good faith effort to address Ms. [redacted]’s concerns.  There is no basis to warrant a refund.  Davison remains willing to complete any remaining services with the original product design, which was approved by Ms. [redacted].  Also, Davison remains willing to consider reasonable modifications to the design. However, such an agreement does not imply a wholesale re-design for a much more complex device.   Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison 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 about 10/17/2016.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 andthroughout the development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an openchannel of communication, disclosing, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of newproduct development, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fineprint” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services,fees and the development of their project. Mr. [redacted]’s contention that he was notinformed of additional services for the development of his project is simply false. Hewas advised no less than three times about the additional services. There is no basis for arefund, nor support for his complaint.Mr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through itswebsite on 03/15/2016. 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. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice toseek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure thenprovides a listing of the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy ofthe disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr. [redacted]. Heacknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read thesedisclosures. Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on03/15/2016 at 13:53:22 EST. Note the submitted idea has been redacted forconfidentiality purposes.Following his acknowledgment, he was provided the initial pre-developmentcontract. As he is a resident of Texas, the disclosure of all services and fees was againprovided as part of the contract. Enclosed, please find a copy of this second disclosurefrom the contract. Finally, Section II. B. of the contract explicitly provides;“B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format forpresentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide firther development services, under a separate contractfor a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for thetargeted Licensee.”Mr. [redacted] entered the initial pre-development contract, and those services wereperformed. Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and thedisclosures provided to him, Davison offered additional services for the furtherdevelopment of his project. He declined these additional services, which is hisprerogative.There is no factual basis to support Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. As stated above, hewas fully informed, on multiple occasions, of all the services and fees. He acknowledgedhaving received and read the disclosures of the services and fees. These disclosures wereprovided BEFORE he entered any contract. The services for which he contracted havebeen performed. His decision to not pursue the further development of his product ideadoes not negate the initial service which was completed. There is no basis for a refund.SincerelyDavid ** D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

[redacted]    , I reject this business response . They advertised that they would handle cost to complete cost  contact is made. Soon as this company listens the customers ideas is when they request a little money to get started.. This is not an upfront with customer company. Had they been truthful about cost/all cost I would have not have had any further dealing at that point. PLEASE NOTE at the very point of first contact with company I had no intent of spending a hundred dollar on project , when this company Ad claimed to handle cost. Company has been a bait and switch from start. This company may finish work, but all its been for me is ONE BIG ALSO CHARGE/ALSO YOU NEED TO PAY THIS . If company had told me a upfront an $795. 00 assessment was needed I would have said no thank you an good day.  They have bad advertisement  that gets a persons interest up, and from there the customer is lead (not leading) this advertised transaction. The first thing the customer should know in bright letters is $795.00 fee just to get things started. Company advertise A New Way To Invent, but the customer should see past bright colors to the fact that the services here are just as much as any other like company. Misleading advertising is why I'm out $795.00 with this company (Davison).

Dear Mr. Baker;This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted]on or about 08/17/2015. In his comments, Mr. [redacted] raises a variety of issues, manyof which have been addressed in prior responses. The issues are again addressed,however, as stated in all prior replies; Davison has performed its services with Mr.[redacted]’s approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. While it isunfortunate his product idea was not licensed, that fact does not provide grounds for arefund.Mr. [redacted] again alleges he was informed the targeted corporation had expressedinterest in his product idea, before he contracted to have the product sample designed andconstructed. There is simply no logic in this contention. Mr. [redacted] was informed ofthe target corporation’s identity in September 2012. The letter informing him of theidentity of the target corporation explicitly states that Davison has not disclosed anyinformation about his product idea to the corporation. It was not until 2014 that Davisonhas a physical product sample, presentation material, and Mr. [redacted]’ s authorization tomake the presentation.Mr. [redacted] again alleges the product sample did not meet with his satisfaction.The prior responses provided the documented evidence of his approval of the design, hisauthorization of the presentation and his completed questionnaires in which he providedpositive feedback. To now, in retrospect, allege dissatisfaction is not credible.Mr. [redacted] questions whether any Davison designed products are actually in themarketplace. He is directed to Davison’s website. On the site, there is a listing oflicensed products and the stores in which the specific product has been sold. Further,there are video clips, taken in the various retail stores, showing the licensed products onthe store shelves. Mr. [redacted] can search that site or, better yet, he is encouraged todrive to one of the identified stores in his local area to find the products himself.Finally, Mr. [redacted] alleges he did not receive his physical product sample. Aspreviously stated, he received an actual photograph of the product sample as pert of theExecutive Summary. The contact terms explicitly state; “4. F. . . .The items to bedelivered for Client’s possession pursuant to this Agreement are the Integrated ProductRendering and the Executive Suimnary. Client intends that Davison will retain possessionof the product and packaging sample, unless Client requests otherwise in writing.” Therecord indicates that Mr. [redacted] has not made such a request. Should he desire toreceive the product sample, he need only inform the Licensing Department who willcoordinate the shipment of the sample.Davison has performed its services with Mr. [redacted]’s approval, authorizationand to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis to warrant a refund for servicesrendered. Despite his stated refusal, Davison will continue to honor its offer of twoadditional presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted]. If he chooses to accept this offer, heneed only contact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessarypaperwork to authorize the presentations.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, Attention [redacted]:Yes, I received a call from Ms. B[redacted] but, she didn't say any thing except telling me that she didn't receive my email I sent her on November 27, 2017.  I told her that I will forward it to her. Which I did on my last email contact with her.If she is a contact person for License Department then why didn't she say so.  We could have proceeded with what they are offering to solve the issue. Best Regards,[redacted]

This letter is in response to the “additional concerns” that you provided in your letter dated January 3, 2017.Mr. K[redacted] raised nothing new or additional in his comments. The facts are that Davison made a design that was in all materials respects exactly what he wanted, with one small exception. When Mr. K[redacted] requested that the one small aspect be changed, the company agreed, if he provided one measurement that would be necessary to the change. Mr. K[redacted] never provided the measurement, twice changed his mind about what work he wanted the company to perform, and ultimately decided that he wanted the company to start from the beginning and permit him to participate in the work. It was only his last demand to start over that caused the company to offer to quote re-doing the project from the beginning.Davison has substantially performed the services, offered to make a change that he deemed necessary and has attempted to resolve the dispute. Mr. K[redacted] would have the sample that he originally sought, if he cooperated and provided the one piece of information requested.Regards,George H. C[redacted]General Counsel

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 05/29/2015.Unfortunately, Mr. [redacted]’s complaint contains numerous false and defamatory comments. Heprovides a gross mischaracterization of...

Davison’s services, and simply ignores the disclosures heacknowledged having read, and ignores the clear terms of the contract that he entered. Davisonprovided its services per the terms of the contract. Davison offered additional developmentservices which Mr. [redacted] has declined. There is no basis for a refund for services rendered.Customer concerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshootthem so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact andthroughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing itsservices and fees upfront and securing its clients’ approval and authorization throughout theprocess. The contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to bemore upfront with their clients about the services and fees.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’s website. Thesystem Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit anidea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, andthe person electronically acknowledging the disclosures. On 04/22/2015, Mr. [redacted]acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the two disclosurestatements. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters anyservice contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that“It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with a submittedidea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and related fees. Following hisacknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered into an agreement for Pre-Developmentservices which obligated Davison to compile research data related to his product idea. Davisoncompleted the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled research to Mr. [redacted] on05/21/2015. Subsequently, Davison offered additional services, under a separate contract, whichMr. [redacted] has declined. The Pre-Development Agreement states that the services to be provided included: acompilation of Product Related Data, a Patent Review, a Corporation Review, a Product PlanningSession and that the compiled information was to be provided to the client in a Product Portfolio.The purpose of the Pre-Development research is to collect information relevant to the furtherdevelopment of the client’s product idea. To blindly assume that no individual has previouslythought of a similar product idea is simply naive. Further, the Agreement states in relevant part(emphasis added);“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample,packaging and relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to aLicensee, at Client’s sole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further developmentservices, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample andpresentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materialselsewhere or not to obtain them.”The Agreement, in conjunction with the two disclosures, is clear that the Pre-DevelopmentAgreement was for research services, and that additional development services would be offeredunder a separate contract. To the extent Mr. [redacted] was unaware of this fact; it is not due to alack of disclosure by Davison.Addressing Mr. [redacted]’s specific concerns, he first alleges he did not receive the servicesfor which he contracted. He is mistaken. His complaint confirms his receipt of the services. Theresearch services for which he contracted were the prior patents and other similar productinformation that he complains about receiving. Next, he alleges that there is “no developmentand design”, this is a misstatement. As stated, Mr. [redacted] contracted for Pre-Developmentservices. As the name indicates, theses are services offered before design and developmentservices are offered. The design and development services were offered to Mr. [redacted] and hedeclined. Finally, Mr. [redacted] raises a concern over the confidentiality of his idea. When hesubmitted his idea, he did so by entering a Confidentially Agreement. Under the express terms ofthe Agreement; “Davison will not use, disclose, license or sell this idea with out my [Mr. [redacted]]express written permission.” Davison takes the obligation of confidentiality seriously, and abidesby the terms of the Agreement. However, Davison can not account for similar, or the same, ideasthat may be submitted by other clients, or that may be disclosed to the general public throughother avenues. It is not uncommon for multiple people to conceive of the same, or similar,products independently.As stated, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered byDavison, BEFORE he entered into any contract. The services for which there existed a contracthave been performed. No additional contracts have been entered and no additional paymentshave been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered.David * D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

I disagree with the statements made by the Davison representative.  I advised Davison at the beginning of the project about an existing patent.  They totally ignored my input and changed the design in a manner which totally conflicted with the existing patent.  Representatives of Davison advised my that the company may intentional design flaws so the development departments of possible licensors would "feel worthwhile".  Davison has countless complaints from unhappy customers.  They were instructed what to do, they disregarded those instructions, and are now asking for additional money to do what they should have done right from beginning of the project.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 02 25 2016.Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperativewhen operating a successful business. Customer...

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

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted]regarding the above referenced complaint. He sets forth a wide ranging series of questionsdirected to why Davison offers the services it does, what is meant by certain provisions of thecontracts and also a number of legal inquiries regarding patents. The short answer is that overthe course of more than twenty-five years in the product development industry, Davison hascreated a cost-effective process of transforming a basic idea into a suitable product concept forpresentation to potential licensees. A more thorough response to his specific questions isprovided below.Patents: Mr. [redacted] asks about the provisional patent application cover sheet, and thetype of documents that might be helpful for filing a provisional application. As stated in theinitial response, Davison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services, or any other legalservices. The Inventor is solely responsible for the completion and sufficiency of any patentapplication. Many clients are interested in securing intellectual property protection for theirproduct concept, and a provisional patent application is one cost effective means offered by theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) of securing a filing date. Davison merelyprovides to the client any documents that Davison may have developed regarding the product ideaand a standard USPTO form for the cover sheet that must accompany a provisional patentapplication. The decision to file and the decision of what needs to be included is solely theclient’s responsibility.Renderings and Executive Summaries: Mr. [redacted] asks why an integrated productrendering is necessary and what is meant by an Executive Summary. As stated above, Davisonhas developed its process for presenting concepts to corporations over the past twenty-five years.As a fundamental part of that process, the integrated product rending provides a potential licenseea visual depiction of the product and the Executive Summary provides a textual explanation ofthe concept. If Mr. [redacted] disagrees with that process, he was free to not engage the service.However, the service of creating the rending and summary is clearly discl[redacted]d in the initialdisclosure and stated clearly as part of the services under the contract.Selection of Companies: Mr. [redacted] asks why certain companies are selected forpresenting a client’s product idea. In general, corporations are hesitant to confidentially receivenew product ideas from the general public. Davison has contractual agreements with a widevariety of corporations who have agreed to accept product idea submissions on a confidentialbasis. This confidentiality is vitally important throughout the development process. When aparticular client idea is submitted to Davison, the product idea is reviewed to determine thefunctions of the product, the anticipated manufacturing constraints and other details related to itsdevelopment. With these details in mind, a corporation, with whom Davison has a confidentialityagreement in place, is selected as a suitable corporation to target.Fees: Mr. [redacted] asks what types of alternate fee arrangements are offered to minimizethe upfront costs. The general fees for all services are disclosed before any contract is enteredinto and the specific fee for a specific contract is explicitly set forth in the contract terms. Thefees for the second phase contracts, though individually quoted, are typically less for anIntegrated Product Rendering Agreement as compared to the New Product Sample Agreement.Also, Davison does not require the full payment at the time of signing; the client may makeperiodic payments toward the fee. Under that arrangement, though no services are due until fullpayment of the fee has been received; Davison often begins the design process when the clienthas paid at least 60% of the fee. Mr. [redacted] is certainly entitled to believe this “doesn’t seem tobe less of an up-front commitment to me”, and he could have decided to not enter the agreement.But having been fully informed of the fees and having entered the agreement, it is not reasonableto now complain in retrospect about the fee.Contract Provisions: Mr. [redacted] asks the meaning of a number of provisions in thecontract unrelated to the specific performance of services. These issues are not a valid basis forcomplaint. If Mr. [redacted] did not understand the contract terms, he could have secured legalcounsel before entering the contract. Having entered the contract, it is not reasonable to nowcomplain that he does not understand its terms. Davison is not law firm and does not provide anylegal advice to its clients. However, without expounding a “Law School 101” analysis they arestandard provisions that address aspects of the contractual relationship. As an example, the choiceof law, arbitration and cure provision addresses the mechanics of how disputes between theparties are to be handled. Mr. [redacted] is an Ohio resident and Davison is a Pennsylvaniacompany. If there is a legal dispute, would Pennsylvania or Ohio law apply to the contract? - thechoice of law provision addresses that issue.As previously stated, there is no factual basis to support Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. Thepre-development service has been performed to his documented satisfaction. The IPRP contractwas not cancelled within the stated period, thus there is no basis for a refund. Davison will honorits prior offer to refund 80% of the monies paid toward the IPRP agreement. There is no basis torefund any monies on the pre-development agreement as these services have been performed toMr. [redacted]’s documented satisfaction. If Mr. [redacted] desires to accept this offer, he needsimply contact Davison’s legal department and the paper work will be forwarded to his attention.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. Lesson learned...can't trust anybody.  So glad I did not fall into the trap of this business and send them more money! Regards,
[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 05/07/2017. 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] alleges she was not informed of the services and fees. As will be detailed, there is no support for her complaint. Ms. [redacted] first contacted Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 09/17/2013.  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.  She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she 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 09/17/2013 at 13:48:59 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 10/25/2016.  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.”The services under the initial agreement were completed to her documented satisfaction.  Enclosed please find a signed questionnaire in which she provides positive feedback.  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.There is no factual basis to support Ms. [redacted]’s 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 to her documented satisfaction.  Additional development services were offered and declined.  There is no basis for a refund for services rendered. 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 05/22/2015.Please note that Ms. [redacted] has been refunded her payment in full. This refund wasprocessed on 05/21/20154, a copy of the refund receipt...

is attached hereto. Outside ofprocessing the refund, Davison has no control of the posting of the credit to her account.It bears noting that in her complaint, Ms. [redacted] states the payment was for “legaland patenting fees”. This is incorrect. The fee was for the performance of researchrelated to her idea for a new product. Davison is not a law firm and does not advertisethat it provides intellectual property services or any other legal services. The contractsfor services do not include patent filing services or any other legal services. To the extentMs. [redacted] beleived she was making payment for such legal services, she is mistaken,through no fault of Davison.In light of the refund, I kindly ask that her complaint be closed as “resolved”.Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.EnclosureTurning ideas

January 23, 2017Re: [redacted]Your ID#: [redacted]Dear Mr. [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 01/16/2017. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to...

troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing its clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. The contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. A review of Mr. [redacted]’ file indicates that Davison has performed all services with his approval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. There is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in May 2013. On 07/01/2013, he contracted for pre-development research services which were completed by 07/23/2013. Then on 08/14/2013 he entered a service contract for the creation of a rendering that depicted his product idea and presentation material. He also contracted for the creation of a short video describing his product idea. Mr. [redacted] approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of his idea and completed two questionnaires (one about the rendering and the second about the presentation material) providing positive feedback. His product idea was presented to the targeted corporation. The corporation chose not to license his idea. Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation to two additional corporations; neither of which chose to license his product. No additional services have been retained. Copies of his approvals, authorization, and completed questionnaires are enclosed. Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] make a number of mischaracterizations. First, he states he hired Davison to “endorse a patent I created”. It is unclear as to what service he is referencing by “endorse a patent”. Regardless, Davison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services, or any other legal services. The contracts are explicitly clear the client is solely responsible for pursing any patent, or other intellectual property protections. To the extent he believes Davison offers patent services, he is mistaken. Mr. [redacted] states he has received a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO. It bears noting that the initial application for his invention was filed with the USPTO on 06/20/2012, more than 10 months before he contacted Davison.Next, he states he hired Davison to have his product “b[r]ought to Market”. This mischaracterizes Davison’s role. Davison does not “market” its clients’ products to the general public. Davison develops its clients’ product ideas and makes presentations to corporation in an effort to license the product idea. It is the subsequent corporation who enters a license that then manufactures and markets the product to the public.Finally, Mr. [redacted] states he hired Davison to make a prototype of the product idea. This is inaccurate. He had entered an “Integrated Product Rendering” agreement. The language in 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 physical prototype.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. 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 CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms. [redacted]regarding the above referenced complaint. Ms. [redacted] does not deny that she provided the variousapprovals, authorizations, and questionnaires; rather she argues that those documents have norelation to the development of her product sample. There is no logical basis for such a position.Ms. [redacted] contends that the documented approval, authorization, and questionnairesrepresent “merely the process Davison uses to fulfill each stage of the Product Idea not theProduct Prototype”. To some degree she is correct it is Davison’s process to ensure its servicesare performed satisfactorily. What she ignores is that the process that Davison follows in thedevelopment of a client’s product sample, the creation of presentation material, and thepresentation of the idea to a potential licensee is directly related to the product sample.It is Davison’s process to secure a clients approval of a design before the product sampleis created. Ms. [redacted] provided this approval. Once the product sample and presentation materialare created, it is Davison’s process to provide these items to the client and secure theirauthorization to proceed with the presentation. Ms. [redacted] provided this authorization. In short, itis Davison’s process to secure, and document, the client’s approval and authorization throughoutthe development and presentation of a product idea. That process was followed with Ms.[redacted]’s project and it is that process that ensures a product sample has been created consistentwith the contract terms. Finally, it is important to emphasize that this process resulted in Ms.[redacted] obtaining a license agreement for her product.There is simply no basis for her complaint, or for her demand for a refund.SincerelyDavid *. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.LEGAL DEPARTMENT

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about11 / 12/2015. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum....

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

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
Please refer to the written response that I mailed to the Revdex.com, and permitted you to publish on your site. In summary, in exchange for US$10,000.00 I was given some Davison DVDs and a picture of a "product" that bore no resemblance to the idea that I submitted. Davison is ripping people off and is a menace to society. Furthermore, multiple phone calls from Christopher R[redacted], "Director of New Product Development" amount to consumer harassment. 
Regards,
[redacted]

I do not agree with this statement because it is not true. Ryan has not provided me with any proof of this pre -development phase and I do not know what it is. I have asked Ryan many times if I had to pay any additional fees and he said no. The only information I got from ryan were emails of similar products that made it look as though my product was not worth it. I have NEVER talked to or came in contact with David ** D[redacted], the person who wrote the previous statement, and Ryan kept telling me that there was a need for my product for about 2 weeks until he just stop calling but provided me with no proof. I asked him 3 times for refund and all he said was well there is a need and we did some of the work. I would at least accept $600 back.
Regards,
[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 02/10/2016. 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 upfrontand securing its clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process. The contracts aresimply written, with no “fine print” provisions. A review of Mrs. [redacted]’s file indicates thatDavison has performed all services with her approval and authorization, and to her documentedsatisfaction. There is no support for her complaint.Briefly stated, Ms. [redacted] contacted Davison in July 2014. At the time of her initialcontact, she was provided with two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savableformat. Ms. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received and read the twodisclosure statements. 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 is thestatement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection witha submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and related fees.Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services. Ms. [redacted] then entered intotwo service contacts. The first was for pre-development research which was provided to her. Thesecond was for the creation of a rendering that depicted her product idea and presentationmaterial. Ms. [redacted] approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of her ideaand completed a questionnaire about the rendering and presentation material, providing positivefeedback. Her product idea was presented to the targeted corporation on 09/22/2015. Thecorporation chose not to license her idea. An offer to make additional presentations was made toMs. [redacted]. She declined this additional service, which is her prerogative. Copies of herapprovals, authorization, and completed questionnaire are enclosed. Note the actual approveddesign has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.complains that a physical product was never made, suggesting this was a service for which shecontracted. She had entered an “Integrated Product Rendering” agreement. The language in thecontract, from its title to the specific terms, is clear that a graphic representation of her productidea, i.e. a rendering, depiction, design, was to be developed. No term refers to the constructionof a physical product sample. Next, she alleges she was not informed of the fees for theadditional service of presenting her product idea to subsequent corporations. Again, thedisclosure clearly sets out this service and fee, and the contract terms are clear that the initialpresentation service is directed only to the designated corporation. Finally, she makes theunsubstantiated claim that the company to which her product was presented was a “mockcompany”. To the contrary, the company to which her product was presented is an establishedcorporation in the medical industry, having been in existence for over thirty years. It bears notingthat Davison’s Office of the President has been in contact with Ms. [redacted] to address herconcerns. In a conversation on or about December 4, 2015, Ms. [redacted] conceded to having notread the contract. Davison can only fully disclose its services and fees. It is not reasonable tohold Davison accountable for clients who chose to ignore the numerous disclosures and contractterms.As stated, all services have been performed with Ms. [redacted]’s express written approvaland authorization, and to her documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunate that the targetedcorporation chose not to pursue her 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 clientwho has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that aparticular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services thatwere provided. There is no basis to warrant a refund. However, in the interest of customersatisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms. [redacted]. If shechooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinatethe necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Sincerely,David M. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures