Paint Solutions

I typed a decline on the rebuttal from Davison's attorney.I declined even though we do not disagree with most of it's content.What we do not agree with is the practices of Mr. P[redacted] in never explaining that all we had to do was write a request for a copy of our prototype. We feel we have been misled and almost the feeling of forced agreement.We mearly questoned the practices of presenting and decline of our idea with no more than we are expected to take Davison's word that it was presented and rejected instead of a copy of these rejection e-mails being passed on to us for our records.We were accused of trying to cause trouble for the licensing agent handling our project and then she accused me of lying. We have waited several weeks for return corruspondence from Davison licensing department and will comply with the letter from Davison. I will close thanking you for your help but they have their t's crossed and I's dotted to cover the actuality of our experience.We just wanted physical proof instead of just their word that they changed packaging and  presented our idea to a company they have had success with instead of ones they have sent twenty ideas to with twenty rejections. Thankyou.

I'm back and I need your help again. as you know I finally received my sample. after I did some adjustments I sent it back and asked Davison to reply when they received it. no reply;  also I asked them after they received it and read my notes plus I asked if we could not get on the same page or work together, I would be just as happy if they gave me back all of my money back; no reply; the third email I asked why in eight months they only target two companies, to please reply; no reply;  so my point is I'm tired, upset, and out of patience, I don't what to play cat and mouse anymore, just what my money back, I hope maybe you can give them a push and get a response out of them, to see what they are going to do. thank- you for your time and please reply.

The enclosed files are photos I took after reading Davison's reply to my complaint & am submitting it to you to do with as you see fit i.e. paragraph 5 beginning  with As part of my method,of my method So where do I get the application ? From Davison? Or do I have to obtain it myself? The wording I feel is misleading
Regards,
[redacted]Have additional information pertaining to Davison response to my first complaint: First of all; Know i'm not getting a refund & really wasn't asking for one. Secondly have more photos of letters from them about the provisional patent application materials (I misworded that part in my 1st complaint)3rdly Ms. M[redacted] didn't send me the receipt I requested until after I had filed a complaint against them My complaint is why do they wait until everything is paid before they contact a target company & is there always a need for an integrated product rendering ?An answer to my two questionRecently filed a complaint only to receive a reply from them stating I made a false claim & did not Ms. M[redacted] did send me my receipt as stated in the reply. Reeived it on 06/14/2016 after I had filed the complaint against the** Had requested it at least 3 times before. I admit I wrongly worded the part about the patent & meant to ask the question what is a provisional patent application coversheet? I don't know. When asking about the patent materials wasn't really given an answer as that isn't provided until after all fees are paid nor is the presentation to the target company. I happen to disagree with their choice of [redacted]. Out of 53 presentations to them & have secured 0 licensing agreements Why not [redacted]...etc.? Why the need for an integrated product rendering? What is Executive Summary? What is choice of law? Does it mean they can't be sued for damages in a class action suit & only by an individual? Who by the way doesn't have the money to hire an attorney anyway. What documents are they referring to that one might find helpful for filing a provisional application for patent? What additional options not included in the paperwork is Ms. M[redacted] referring to & what structure that will make it easier for me to move forward with less of an up-front financial commitment to prepare the integrated product rendering & presentation materials? When asked about how much less of an up-front financial commitment & if she could give me a dollar amount,(she'll probably deny this) all she replied was $5850 Doesn't seem to be less of an up-front financial commitment to meAnswers to these questions & didn't get some of them as I didnt ask until now Now I want answer to them because I have now asked them

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

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.
I have saved every email, video and paperwork. They are falsely advertising to gain clients. $9,700 to “ get started” then later you’re shown a cheap compute image that is claimed to function as said. I have all the proof to show I have a valid claim.
Regards,
[redacted]

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

400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                         ...⇄ November 14, 2017               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. Gasser;   This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 11/08/2017.  Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum.  From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.   It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services and fees.  Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients sometimes disregard the disclosures and contract terms.  As will be detailed below, Ms. [redacted] has not met her obligation of full payment of the contrct fee, no services are due to be performed, Davison remains willing to complete all contracted services, and there is no basis for a refund.   In August 2016, Ms. [redacted] entered into a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA) for design services.  She selected a fee option which is to be paid in full before any services are due to be performed.  The contract provided a seven day revocation period within which written notice of cancellation could have been provided and a refund processed.  She did not cancel the contract within that period.  To date, full payment of the retainer fee has not been paid, as such, no services under the NPSA are yet due.    Despite not being contractually obligated, Davison does begin the design process when a client has paid 60% of the agreed fee.  It is important to note that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer that creates a product sample based upon the client’s preconceived notions.  Davison is a design and development firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client.  The contract which Ms. [redacted] entered explicitly states the following;   “1. A. iv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncover product design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilities. The ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process often results in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial, to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposed design is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect current manufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market….   4. O. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client…This Agreement does not contain or incorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sample to be produced.”   Davison performed its initial design of the product sample and submitted a proposed design for the Ms. [redacted]’s approval in November 2017.  She did not approve the initial design.  The express purpose of seeking approval of the design before a product sample is constructed, is to allow the client an opportunity to understand the proposed design and to provide their input.   As previously stated, the contract goal is to create a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client, which may differ from their preconceived ideas.    The basis of her complaint is that the proposed design was not the same design as her original idea.  As previously stated, the contract goal is to create a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client, which may differ from their preconceived ideas.  Davison remains willing and able to address any concerns that Ms. [redacted] has with the proposed design, within the terms of the contract.  In the event she believes the proposed design does not solve the problem she identified, or if she believes there is a more cost-effective method to solve the problem, she may provide written details to Davison of the modifications.  Upon receipt, the modifications will be considered.   Davison remains willing and able to address any concerns that Ms. [redacted] has with the proposed design, within the terms of the contract.  There is no basis to support her claim for a refund. Similarly, if her decision is to terminate the contract, which is her prerogative, that decision is not a valid basis for a refund.  Davison has performed its services according to the contract and remains willing to complete the services upon an agreement of the design and final payment of the outstanding fee balance.      Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Ms. [redacted]regarding the above referenced complaint. Ms. [redacted] states that she “should have been informedof the other 8 products out there that were similar to my idea.” As stated in the original response,Ms. [redacted] was provided this information on 10/13/2015; delivery was confirmed by the US.Postal Service; and she engaged in a conversation about the research with a representative ofDavison. Clearly she has the information to be commenting upon it.If her contention is that she should have been provided the information sooner than shewas, it is unclear on how Davison could have provided the information any sooner. It is notpossible to have provided the information before she engaged the services to compile theresearch. The contract provided an eight (8) week period for performance, and the research wasprovided to her within that time frame. Further, as she has not engaged any additional services,she has in fact received the information prior to deciding whether to pursue any furtherdevelopment of her idea. There is no credible basis for her complaint.The services for which there was a contract have been performed according to the termsof the contract. There is no basis to support her complaint or to warrant a refund. At her request,she has been added to Davison’s “Do Not Contact” list.

[redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about07/19/20 16. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Mr. [redacted]’ productsample has been shipped.As noted in his statement, Mr. [redacted]...

requested that his product sample beshipped to him. On May 11,2016 he completed the necessary paperwork andspecifically requested that the sample be inspected and repaired (if necessary) beforeshipment. The document explicitly states that “there is no predetermined timeline to shipthe sample. You will be informed when the sample will be shipped based on the amountof time it takes to prepare it”. A copy of the signed form is enclosed. The sample waslocated, inspected and prepared for shipment. It was shipped on July 27, 2016 anddelivery was confinned on July 30, 2016. A copy of the delivery confirmation isenclosed. To the extent the time necessary to inspect and prepare the sample forshipment was longer than Mr. [redacted] may have anticipated, or if it caused anyinconvenience to him, Davison extends its apology.

Revdex.com:
I have read through the responses from Davison and would like to respond to some of their comments.In the second paragraph of their response they elude to the fact that the disclosures were made prior to  me making any payments to Davison. There were numerous phone conversations with my contact at Davison and I must say that he was more than persuasive regarding what they would do for me and my invention. Unfortunately, none of these conversations were recorded, as I was being steered through the process. They are quite the sales people. In this second paragraph it states "Among the disclosures is the statement that "It is Davison's normal Practice to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted ides'. Yet they state that I was informed that they would only submit my idea to one company and after that I must pay more to have them submit it to additional companies. In this paragraph they state "enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 11/13/2012.  I only started talking with Davison in 2015. My check They asked for a check in the amount of $745.00 for the cost of the development agreement. Then on March 20, 2015 I paid them $8,332 which was for the cost of the New Product Sample Agreement. It now seems like an extremely large amount to develop a package no larger than approximately 2" x 2". The did a CAD drawing of the specifications fo my product, which appears to be a very simple engineer's design of the product with dimensions. I'm not an engineer, but it seems to me that my simple product would not have required much time to sketch out for someone whose is adept at CAD drawing applications.In the third paragraph they state that they submitted a design fo the product sample to me and that I approved it. They are the professionals, so why would I not say OK, looks good to me? In this same paragraph they mention the positive feedback about the Executive Briefing. At this point I was still excited about my produce, so why would I not give positive feed back. I'm not an expert on the product development; that is their area of responsibility.In the fourth paragraph, they state that I said Davison was to market my idea. They state that Davison does not market my product to the general public. I was eliding to the marketing of my product to corporations in an effort to sell my patent to them to produce the product for resale. In this same paragraph they state that I referenced promises and implied some form of guarantee. I never said they guaranteed anything. I expected more than what I did get from them for the amount I paid them upfront. Many of their sales techniques included videos and success stories, which are, I believe, intended to keep a person on the hook.  It is clear to me now that when I called early on in the process, before I sent money in to them, and questioned their ratings with the Revdex.com, and was told that these ratings were not important.  I will say it again, They are all very good sales people.I just don't feel that their efforts were not nearly equal to the costs they collected up front. I feel that, in fact, a refund is due to me.I hope that this narrative helps to explain my perspective for the entire process.[redacted]

Dear Ms. [redacted],I read the offer from Davidson's Inventionland. I am not sure how to proceed as they offered reasonable modifications. So will they accept this as reasonable modifications? Basically what I need is the base engineered correctly and workable, a disk to present to companies, the technical drawings for the base adaption system...if they are going to engineer and build then I would also need the prototype. I really don't want to leave anything in their hands at this point. No one has tried to contact me from Davidson's so far since Ted M[redacted]. Hung up on me that day. If someone contacts me it should be his boss. so yes, I would except there offer to really do it but if they can't or wont, I need my funds returned so I can quickly hire an engineer to do so. Time is a grave issue. I need this done by them in one month...can it be done? They have had it for one year now.Thank you for your time,[redacted]

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania [redacted]                                                                 ...⇄   March 02, 2017                 Re:      [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.  It bears noting that the original complaint was filed on 08/17/2015, Davison provided a response on 08/27/2015, Mr. [redacted] continued to work with Davison, and all services were completed by June 2016.  Now, more than a year and a half after the original complaint, and more than eight months after services were completed, Mr. [redacted] filed these comments alleging no services were rendered.    The product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain and often is pursued over a lengthy period of time.  As a result, it is easy to lose track of the work and effort that has been provided along the way, particularly in the unfortunate event that a license is not secured.  In Mr. [redacted]’s case, Davison has provided its services with his express written approval and authorization.  A brief summary of events will aid in understanding the services that were provided.               Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in September 2011, was provided with, and acknowledged that he received and read, two disclosures which outline the services, fees and the risks of the new product development process.  Following receipt of these disclosures, he entered into a Pre-Development Agreement for the completion of research related to his submitted idea.  This research was completed and provided to him.  The research material was comprised of eleven U.S. patent documents and information on seven similar products that were then available on the market.  Following the completion of this initial service, he entered into a New Product Sample Agreement for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentation material.  Davison submitted a design of the product sample to Mr. [redacted] which he approved.  In reliance upon his approval of the design, Davison constructed the various materials and provided to him an Executive Briefing.   Mr. [redacted] also entered an agreement for the creation of a video of his product idea.  There was no charge for this service as Davison waived its fee.  Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation of his product idea to the targeted corporation.  A copy of his approval and authorization are enclosed, note the actual approved design has been redacted or confidentiality purposes.  Initially, [redacted] was the corporation to whom his product idea was to be presented.  However, on 02/02/2016, Mr. [redacted] authorized a change in the targeted corporation to [redacted].  A copy of his agreement to the change is enclosed.  The presentation was made, though the company declined to license his product idea.               It was only after services were completed that Mr. [redacted] began to demand a full refund.  As stated earlier, the simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.  Our 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.  Davison has no obligation, legal or otherwise, to refund any monies paid by Mr. [redacted] for services rendered.  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 M. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.   Enclosures

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                           March 30, 2017                 Re:      [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]                                    Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms. [redacted] in regard to the above referenced complaint.  As stated in the original response of March 07, 2017, 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.  Despite having complied with the terms of the contract, Davison had agreed to consider reasonable modifications.  Unfortunately, Ms. [redacted] has refused the suggested alternatives to the design of her product sample and has made demands inconsistent with scope of the contract. Following the initial response, Davison contacted Ms. [redacted] on March 22, 2017 to discuss alternatives to her product design.  Ms. [redacted] refused these alternatives.  In the discussion, it became apparent that she misunderstood the initial design, not realizing the design did in fact incorporate suctions cups, consistent with her initial submission.  The engineering drawings were again submitted to her for review.  As yet, Davison has not heard back from her. In her additional comments, Ms. [redacted] references a “base adaption system” and a “disk to present to companies”.  She provides no additional detail as to what these items may incorporate.  The “adaption system”, to the extent it implies a mechanical device, is well beyond the scope of her initial submission and the scope of the contract she entered.  Such a significant modification is not reasonable in light of the product concept that was submitted and quoted in the contract.  Similarly the “disk to present to companies”, regardless of what she believes would be included on such a disk, is not within the scope of the contract.  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 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.  Finally, Davison will provide to Ms. [redacted] all materials which are consistent with the contract terms.     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 about02/12/2016. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront and securing its clients’ [redacted]rovaland 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] contacted Davison in July 2014. At the time of hisinitial contact, he was provided with two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable format. Mr. [redacted] acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he receivedand read the two disclosure statements. It is important to note that the disclosures aremade BEFORE the client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek morethan one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing the services. Mr. [redacted] then entered into two service contacts.The first was for pre-development research which was provided to him. The second wasfor the creation of a rendering that depicted his product idea and presentation material.Mr. [redacted] approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of his idea andcompleted a questionnaire about the rendering and presentation material, providingpositive feedback. His product idea was presented to the targeted corporation on11/20/2015. The corporation chose not to license his idea. Copies of his approvals,authorization, and completed questionnaires are enclosed. Note the actual approveddesign has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.software application. This is inaccurate. He had entered an “Integrated ProductRendering” 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 application development. In addition, thedisclosure statement that details the various services offered by Davison does not indicatethe offer of application development. Simply stated, Davison did not offer applicationdevelopment, and the contract that Mr. [redacted] entered does not include applicationdevelopment services. Davison can only fully disclose its services and fees. To theextent Mr. [redacted] was under the belief that he contracted for application developmentservices, such a misunderstanding is not due to a lack of disclosure by Davison. In theinterest of full disclosure, it should be noted that Davison does currently offer applicationdevelopment services and this service is listed on the current version of the disclosurestatement. However, that service was not a service offered at the time of Mr. [redacted]’sengagement, and was not included in his contract for service. Following the completionof all services, Mr. [redacted] did raise his concerns with Davison. The Office of thePresident reached out to him to arrange a call to address his concerns. Mr. [redacted] hasrefused to engage in any discussions.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr. [redacted]’s express writtenapproval and authorization, and to his documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunatethat the targeted corporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does notnegate the provided services. The simple fact is that the product development processprovides no guarantees of financial gain. The contracts and disclosures are explicit inthis regard. While this is of little comfort to a client who has expended considerabletime, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project does notbring 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 choosesto accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinatethe necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.David ** 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 about07/24/2016. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From...

the time of aninitial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, and providing contracts that aresimply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront withits clients about the services and fees. A review of Mr. [redacted]’s file indicates that allservices, for which he contracted, were completed by March 2015. Now, more than ayear later, he has filed this complaint. The significant delay in presenting his concernsbears on the credibility of his contentions. There is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in August 2014, and entered intothe initial Pre-Development and Representation agreement in November 2014. Thisagreement obligated Davison to compile research material relevant to his submitted idea.This service was completed and the research material was shipped to Mr. [redacted] inMarch 2015. The representation services were contingent upon Mr. [redacted]’s obtaininga product sample and presentation materials. The Pre-Development Agreement states inrelevant part;“Section II: Client Obligations, B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining aproduct 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 furtherdevelopment services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating thesample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtainsuch materials elsewhere or not to obtain them at all. However, materials obtained elsewhere or made byClient are subject to Davison’s approval prior to submission to a Licensee by Davison. If Davison does notapprove the materials made by Client or obtained elsewhere by Client, and Client is unwilling to make suchchanges to the materials as required by Davison, or if Client does not make or obtain presentation materialsand a sample acceptable to Davison, this Agreement will be terminated without refund of any amount paid byClient.On April 10, 2015, consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement,Davison offered additional services for the creation of the product sample andpresentation materials. Mr. [redacted] declined these additional services, which is hisprerogative. Davison’s last contact with Mr. [redacted] was on June 22, 2015. Now, morethan a year later, the complaint was filed.In his complaint, Mr. [redacted] alleges a presentation of his product idea wasmade by Davison. This is not accurate. As detailed above, the presentation wascontingent upon Mr. [redacted]’s securing a product sample and presentation material. Hedeclined Davison’s offer of services for the creation of these items and has not otherwiseprovided the material. Accordingly, there has been no presentation of his product idea.The services for which there was a contract have been performed. Additionalservices were offered, but declined. There is no basis for a refund.

Ms. [redacted]                                   ...⇄ Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania 400 Holiday Drive, Suite 220 Pittsburgh, PA 15220                                     �...⇄                         February 07, 2018               Re:       [redacted]                         Your ID#: [redacted]   Dear Ms. [redacted];   This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] regarding the above referenced matter. Without reiterating the details provided in the initial response his additional comments will be addressed.   Packaging:  As part of the services, Davison designed a packaging solution for Mr. [redacted]’s product sample.  The questionnaire about the Integrated Product Rendering, a copy of which was provided with the initial response, clearly notes his agreement with statement; “The Integrated Product Rendering of the package was informative.” A packaging solution varies depending upon the type of product sample and the potential licensee to whom it is being presented.  It may take the form of a box or container; it may be a wrapper; or a label.  In Mr. [redacted]’s case, the packaging was an informational tag attached to the product sample.   Presentation:  Mr. [redacted]’s product idea was presented, via e-mail on 06/17/2016.  The actual documents are not kept in perpetuity, but a record of the presentation is preserved.  The recordation in his project file is as follows;   EMAIL: 6-17-16 RO-EMAILED PRES (VR & EX SUM) TO [redacted] FURNITURE /NEIL MCKENZIE LL.10--2GETHER This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Your message has been successfully relayed to the following recipients, but the requested delivery status notifications may not be generated by the destination.   As for his request for the response from the corporation, Davison can not provide what it is not given.  The contract which covers the presentation of his product idea explicitly states; “Unless a Licensee proposes a License Agreement or wants to discuss possible changes to the product, few Licensees provide written feedback or responses to a licensing presentation.”    Breach of contract:  The Confidentiality Agreement which Mr. [redacted] entered explicitly states:   “I, the undersigned, will not attempt to communicate in any manner (telephonic, written, electronic or other means) with any corporation that Davison discloses to me as a possible licensee of my idea. I agree that all materials provided to me by Davison are considered trade secrets and any attempt to contact any corporation disclosed by Davison without Davison's written permission will cause harm to Davison's attempt to license my idea or other ideas and to Davison's reputation with the corporation disclosed.”   By his own admission he has violated this provision.  Accordingly, his project has been closed.    Sincerely,   David ** D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison 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.
Regards,
[redacted]

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.I have read the D[redacted]' s respond and I am totally  disagree with the respond because, no one ever told me how I can cancel my contract within seven business days and get my refund.  Also, I will like to know 80% of my $300 what would that be in term of money. Sincerely [redacted]. [redacted]

I want to let you know Davison sent me a check for $1,000, and I received it today 3/17/16. I still would like to receive my other 700.00.Thank You,[redacted]. [redacted]

Not going to.keep arguing with these people. I don't like strife. All I'm saying is that I should have been informed of the other 8 products out there that were similar to my idea. I never received this information. All I received was a contractual agreement to pay 12,000 towards the development of the product. I was told there were no issues and that I was ready to progress to the next step. I don't wish to be contacted again regarding this  matter.                        Sincerely[redacted]

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. Justin [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 06/21/2017.  At the outset it bears noting that the services for Mr. [redacted] were performed in 2013.  The last contact with him was in...

June 2015, over two years ago.  The significant amount of time between the last contact and the submission of his complaint bears on the credibility of his position. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum.  From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions.   It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services and fees.  Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients sometimes disregard the disclosures and contract terms.  In February 2012, Mr. [redacted] entered into a New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA) for design services.  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 Mr. [redacted] entered explicitly states the following;   “1. A. iv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncover product design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilities. The ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process often results in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial, to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposed design is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect current manufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market….   4. O. Client acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived and submitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client…This Agreement does not contain or incorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sample to be produced.”   Davison performed its initial design of the product sample and submitted a proposed design for Mr. [redacted]’s approval in February 2013.  He did not approve the initial design.  The express purpose of seeking approval of the design before a product sample is constructed, is to allow the client an opportunity to understand the proposed design and to provide their input.  Davison engaged in numerous conversations with Mr. [redacted] and, in January 2014, was informed that the design would be approved.  However, no approval was provided.  Davison continued attempts to engage Mr. [redacted] in order to move his project forward.  The last contact, prior to the present complaint, was on June 12, 2015.  The basis of his complaint is that the proposed design “was nowhere close” to his original idea.  As previously stated, the contract goal is to create a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client, which may differ from their preconceived ideas.  Rather than engaging in a discussion of his concerns with the design, Mr. [redacted] has simply allowed his project to rest idle for years.  Davison remains willing and able to address any concerns that Mr. [redacted] has with the proposed design, within the terms of the contract.  In the event he believes the proposed design does not solve the problem he identified, or if he believes there is a more cost-effective method to solve the problem, he may provide written details to Davison of the modifications.  Upon receipt, the modifications will be considered. There is no basis to support his claim for a refund. Davison has performed its services according to the contract and remains willing to complete all remaining services.  Mr. [redacted] need only contact Davison to approve the existing design, or provide the feedback referenced above.   Sincerely,   David *. D[redacted] Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc.