Paint Solutions

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 09/08/Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimumFrom
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” provisionsIt is not possibleto be more upfront with its clients about the services and feesUnfortunately, despite best efforts,clients sometimes disregard the disclosures and contract terms.Ms*** entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development andRepresentation Agreement (PD), and the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA)The PDagreement was completed, providing Ms*** with a compilation of US patent documents andinformation on products similar to her submitted ideaShe then entered the NPSA for the designand construction of a product sample, packaging, and presentation materialIt is important tonote that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer that creates a product sample based upon theclient’s preconceived notionsDavison is a design and development firm whose goal is to createa product sample that is a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the clientThecontract which she entered explicitly states the following;“Aiv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team “brainstorming” sessions will be held to uncoverproduct design solutions that blend with the targeted corporations manufacturing capabilitiesTheergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into considerationThis subjective process oftenresults in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial,to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client’s proposeddesign is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect currentmanufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the marketClient acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived andsubmitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in themanner and with the attributes as originally conceived by ClientThis Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sampleto be produced.”Ms*** selected a payment option and made a partial payment (less than the$11,claimed in her complaint)There is an outstanding balance remaining on the fee.Services under the NPSA are not due to be provided until payment of the full fee has beenreceivedUnderstanding that the retainer amount is a sizable sum, Davison does, voluntarily,begin the design phase of the services when 60% of the agreed fee has been paidAccordingly, aproposed design was developed and submitted to Ms*** for her approvalThe expresspurpose of seeking approval of the design before a product sample is constructed, is to allow theclient an opportunity to understand the proposed design and to provide their inputMs*** didnot approve the initial designDavison’s Office of the President has reached out to Ms*** inan effort to address her concernsThe call is currently being scheduled, and it is hoped that theanticipated discussions will resolve her concerns.In the event Ms*** believes the proposed design does not solve the problem sheidentified, or if she believes there is a more cost-effective method to solve the problem, she mayprovide written details to Davison of the modifications along with payment of any upstandingbalance owed on the selected feeUpon receipt, the modifications will be considered.Alternatively, if she decides to terminate the contract, that is her prerogativeHowever, there isno basis to support her claim for a refundThe NPSA contract provides a revocation periodduring which the contract could have been cancelled and a refund providedThe revocationprovision states: “The revocation provision of this Agreement is the only means of cancelling thisAgreement and obtaining a refundIf the Agreement is cancelled, revoked or terminated after theseven business day period, there will be no refund of any amount paid towards the contract fee.”The revocation period has expired

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 11/14/Davisonunderstands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful businessCustomer
concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing the services and feesupfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process.Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when theirproduct ideas are not licensedThat appears to be the simple truth with Mr***.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary followsMr***contacted Davison in March As with all potential clients, he was provided with disclosuresthat set out; the various services offered, and their related fees; the risks of the new productdevelopment process; and Davison’s historical success rates in securing licensesHe contractedfor the initial pre-development research services which were completedSubsequently, heentered into a contract for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging andpresentation materialDavison submitted a design of the product sample to Mr*** whichhe approved and about which he completed a questionnaire providing positive feedbackInreliance upon his approval of the design, Davison constructed the product sample, packaging andcreated presentation materialsAn Executive Briefing was created which contained an actualphotograph of the constructed product sampleAfter receipt of the Executive Briefing, Mr.*** authorized the presentation of his product idea to the targeted corporationAt that time,he also completed a second questionnaire in which he provided positive feedback about theExecutive BriefingThe first corporation chose not to license his product ideaMr***then contracted for, and authorized, a second presentation to a new corporationAgain, thecorporation chose to not license his ideaMr*** then decided to take a “reactive”approach, and wait to see if a corporation was to approach Davison with a request for a productsimilar to hisA copy of his signed questionnaires and selection of the reactive approach areenclosed.In his complaint, Mr*** first requests proof of the presentationsThe firstpresentation was made on 04/30/and the second presentation was made on 08/28/2015.Enclosed, please find copies of the documents that confirm these presentationNote; theinformation for the individual contact for each corporation has been redacted.Next, Mr*** refers to a continued request for moneyHis statementmischaracterizes the factsDavison had offered to provide the additional service of an additionalpresentationThere is a fee for this serviceMr*** was well aware of this fee as it wasdisclosed to him as part of the initial disclosure in March 2014, it is explicitly referenced in thecontracts which he entered, and most importantly, he had engaged this service, and paid the fee,for the second presentation of his product idea.Finally, Mr*** alleges that “contract promises” were not metThe implicationbeing that there was some form of guarantee that his product would be successful The simplefact is; the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gainDavison doesnot, and simply cannot, make such guaranteesThe express terms of the contracts are explicitthat Davison make no representation about the likelihood of financial gainThe New ProductSample Agreement which Mr*** entered contains the following provisions:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client willreceive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”“The Client understands that there is no way of knowing at this time if the targetedcorporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed.Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihoodof licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”As stated, the design, construction, and presentations of Mr***’s product samplehave been performed with his express written approval and authorization and to his documentedsatisfactionNo additional contracts have been entered and no additional payments have beenreceivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services renderedThe fact that a particularproject does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that wereprovidedHowever, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additionalpresentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contactthe Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.SincerelyDavid * D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 05/26/At the outset,please be advised that Mr*** is not a client of DavisonHe has not entered any contract forservices with Davison, nor
has he made any payment to DavisonHis involvement is that of abusiness partner of Davison’s client, *** ***His allegation of a breach of contract isbaselessAs will be detailed below, Davison has performed its services with Mr***’sapproval and authorization, and to Mr***’s documented satisfactionThere are no groundsfor a refund.Customer concerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshootthem so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact andthroughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing itsservices and fees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout theprocessThe contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsUnfortunately, despiteits best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are notlicensedA brief summary of the services provided to Mr*** follows;07/2011: Mr*** submitted his idea for a new product13/2011: He entered the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement.08/08/2011: Davison provided the contracted research material to Mr***.08/23/2011: Mr*** entered the New Product Sample Agreement.11/28/2011: Mr*** approved the proposed design for the product sample and completeda questionnaire providing positive feedback.02/06/2012: In reliance upon his approval, the product sample, packaging and presentation materialwere created and provided to Mr *** lie authorized the presentation of hisproduct idea and completed another questionnaire providing positive feedback.07/11/2012: The presentation of his product idea was submitted to the designated corporation.10/03/12: The Corporation chose not to license Mr***’s product idea.10/I 8/2012: Davison offered additional services to present to another selected corporationMr.*** has declined these services.11/2013: Davison arranged for the shipment of the product sample to Mr ***.the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.As stated, the design, construction, and presentation of Mr***’s product samplehave been performed with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfactionNo additional contracts have been entered and no additional payments have beenreceivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services renderedThe simple fact is; theproduct development process provides no guarantees of financial gainDavison’s contracts anddisclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is of little comfort to a client who has expendedconsiderable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that a particular project doesnot bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were providedHowever,in the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr.***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department whowill coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.EnclosureTurning ideas

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 07/07/Customer concerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a
minimumFrom 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 processThe contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsIt is not possible to be more upfront with their clients about the services and feesMr***’s contention that he was not informed of the various fees simply ignores the disclosures he acknowledged having read, and ignores the clear terms of the contract that he enteredDavison provided its services per the terms of the contractDavison offered additional development services which Mr*** has declinedThere is no basis for a refund for services rendered.Mr*** contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’s websiteThe system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledging the disclosuresOn 02/18/2015, Mr*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the two disclosure statementsEnclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and fees, and a copy of the data record documenting Mr***’s acknowledgment on 02/18/at 18:26:from IP address (note his submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes)It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to DavisonAmong the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and related feesFollowing his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr*** entered into an agreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile research data related to his product ideaDavison completed the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled research to Mr*** on 05/26/Subsequently, Davison offered additional services, under a separate contract, which Mr*** has declined.The Pre-Development Agreement states that the services to be provided included: a compilation of Product Related Data, a Patent Review, a Corporation Review, a Product Planning Session and that the compiled information was to be provided to the client in a Product PortfolioThe purpose of the Pre-Development research is to collect information relevant to the further development of the client’s product ideaFurther, the Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II BProduct Samples; ApprovalsClient 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 expenseDavison, 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 LicenseeClient is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”The Agreement, in conjunction with the disclosures, is clear that the Pre-Development Agreement was for research services, and that additional development services would be offered under a separate contractTo the extent Mr*** was unaware of this fact; it is not due to a lack of disclosure by Davison.As stated, Mr*** was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered by Davison, BEFORE he entered into any contractThe services for which there existed a contract have been performedNo additional contracts have been entered and no additional payments have been receivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered.Associate CounselDavison Design and Dev

January 13, 2018Ms*** ***Revdex.com of Western PennsylvaniaHoliday Drive, Suite 220Pittsburgh, PA 15220Ref: ***Dear Ms***,I received the response from David ** D***, Associate Counsel, Davison Design and Development, Inc., and I reject his arguments.My complaint to the Revdex.com pertains to the business practices of Davison's Director of New Products, Christopher R***, and these practices have not been addressed in MrD***'s letterI received multiple phone calls and e-mails from MrR*** that were instrumental in persuading me to pay Davison $10,000.00, in exchange for the development of a product sample and patentable idea, and I received nothing that I would call a product and nothing that was patentableI am aware that Davison is not a patent agency, and I did not claim that I believed that Davison is a patent agency.I have never seen a product sample, and I have only the word of MrD*** that any such prototype ever existedThe photo that I received was merely a computer generated depiction of a potential product, referred to by MrR*** as a "product rendering"I did not receive a product sample, a prototype, or a patentable descriptionMrR*** admitted, in a phone call when I asked about the product sample, that there was no physical sample, and that the prototype that he discussed with me on the phone consisted of the product rendering that I had already received.Davison may not provide a guarantee of royalty payments in their contract, however, the infomercials that MrR*** asked me to view on DVD, showed clearly that if an idea was accepted as good enough to be developed, a marketable product would be developed, licensed and placed on retailer's shelves and royalty payments would followThis is deliberately misleading, especially in light of MrD***'s statement that "Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potentialThis is in fact the opposite of Davison's claimPerhaps MrD*** is not familiar with Davison Design and Development, and has never viewed the materials that that Davison sends to clients on Davison's DVDs(I consider myself to be Davison's client after being asked to sign a contract for services and to pay for their services.)More importantly, Davison stole my Idea and replaced it with a product that did not resemble the product that I had in mind, that I depicted in my submission or that I discussed on the phone with Davison's representative, Christopher R***Mr, R*** argued, on the phone, that I should accept Davison's version because Davison was in the business of product development and often made extreme changes to the original ideas that are submitted in the interest of creating a patentable product that can be manufactured and sold.Additionally, I am bound by the contract referred to by MrD***, to keep the idea that I submitted a secret, not to discuss it with anyone and not to submit it elsewhereNot only do I want a refund of the $10,000.00, I want my original idea released from the contract, since it was never utilized or developedIn fact, Davison's licensing department advised me to move on to my second idea as they obviously did not think that they would be able to license the product that Christopher R*** presented to themI refused to proceed since the "work" done on the first idea failed to develop my idea.Davison rips people off when they submit their idea, by asking them for money in exchange for developing their idea, and then:Changing the idea beyond recognitionFailing to produce a product prototype of any kind, thenClaiming that Davison's licensing department failed to find a buyer.I was not surprised that no company wanted the "product rendering" since it was not anything like my original idea, but after being coerced by Christopher R***, relied on Davison's superior judgement since Davison claims expertise in the art of developing ideas into products that can be sold for a profitThe rip off is carried out by annoying and repetitive phone calls asking for signatures and payments amounting to thousands of dollars in exchange for a photo of a non-existent product.In summary, I should be refunded the entire amount that I paid because:MrD*** claims that I was pleased with the product rendering, as MrR*** referred to the computer generated drawing; however the product rendering pertained to MrR***'s replacement idea, not my ideaI signed forms under duress solely because Christopher R*** insisted that I accept Davison's version of my submission, which he claimed would be cheaper to produce, easier to license and more profitable to marketI was coerced to rely upon MrR***'s opinion, and even sent at least two video (DVD) presentations explaining that Davison normally alters invention submissions to make them more marketableThe DVD infomercials were used to entice acceptance of MrR***'s adviceThe altered invention did not meet the specifications of the original idea in anywayMrR*** communicated to me via telephone in order to convince me of his arguments, and via DVD; therefore the written documents reviewed by MrD***, do not address my complaint to the Revdex.comMy issue is coercion by Christopher R***, Director of New Products, to pay for products that are in fact non-existent There are no itemized invoices showing that any work was ever performed, only the word of Christopher R***There is no evidence that any attempt was made to create a prototype or to develop a product, nor to license or sell a productDavison's licensing department was clearly not pleased with the product rendering and I was advised in a follow up phone call to move on to my next ideaI did in fact communicate my displeasure to MrR*** by sending an e-mail to Davison asking for a refundI have never received a response from Christopher R*** (New Products), Linda W*** (Licensing), or any other Davison employeeAfter falling to meet my expectations with the product rendering, Christopher R*** asked me to pay a further $2,to create an "Inventomercial" of the productInventomercials were also explained in vet another lengthy Davison DVDI refused to pay more for an Inventomercial of a product rendering of a non-existent product, and have not heard from MrR*** or Linda W***, after declining further financial involvement.I complained to the Revdex.com because Davison Design and Development Incripped me off to the tune of $10,000.00, then asked for $2,more, and Davison's business practices comprising claims and promises, enforced by signed contracts, should be further investigated, and the public should be warned that they are likely being ripped off when they submit ideas to Davison.You may use all or part of my complaint on the Revdex.com website, provided there are no person details by which I may be identified.*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** againstDavison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 0705/Customer concerns upseteveryone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to aminimumFrom
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, andproviding contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsAs will be detailed below, Mr.*** has stopped all communication with Davison, which is his prerogativeHowever, his decision tostop communication does not provide a valid basis for his complaint or a refund.On February 05,2016, Mr*** entered the initial pre-development contract for Davison tocompile research on U.SPatents and products, which were similar to his ideaAs he is a resident of Ohio,the contract provided a four day revocation period, during which the contract could have been cancelledand he would have received a full refundMr*** did not invoke this provision, and made a series ofpartial payments; though a balance remainsServices under the contract are not due to be performed untilfull payment of the fee has been receivedAs he notes in his complaint, Mr*** stopped makingpaymentsNot only did he stop making payments, he stopped all communicationThe last record ofcontact from Mr*** was on April 19, Davison’s records indicate numerous unsuccessfulattempts to reach him between that date and receipt of the current complaintDavison remains willing tocomplete the services under the contract, provided payment of the full fee is received.Mr***’s demand for a refund has no support in the contractThe revocation clause, which ispositioned directly above the signature line, contains the following; “The revocation provision of thisAgreement is the only means of cancelling this Agreement and obtaining a refundIf the Agreement iscancelled, revoked or terminated after the four business day period, there will be no refund of any amountpaid towards the contract fee.” As stated, Mr*** has made partial payment toward the fee, a balanceremains and the revocation period ended nearly five months agoThere is no contractual basis for a refund.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison has no interest in retainingfees for services that will not be performedDavison will agree to waive its claim for the unpaid balanceand refund 80% of the monies paid toward the agreementIf Mr*** desires to accept this offer, heneed simply contact Davison’s legal department and the paper work will be forwarded to his attention.Sincerely

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 10/07/Regrettably,her complaint is replete with unsubstantiated and defamatory statements; characterizations ofthe services provided; and
factual inaccuraciesFrom the time of an initial contact andthroughout the process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing itsservices and fees upfront, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print”provisionsIt 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 contracttermsThere is no support for her malicious comments and certainly no support for a refund forservices rendered to her documented satisfaction.Ms*** contacted Davison in August The electronic submission systemutilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separatedisclosures displayed in a printable and savable formatIt is important to note that the disclosuresare 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 practice to seek more thanone contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of thevarious services and related fees as well as the historical licensing dataEnclosed, please find acopy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Ms***.She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosures.Enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 08/03/at13:18:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.She entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and RepresentationAgreement (PD), and the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA)The PD agreement wascompleted, providing Ms*** with a compilation of US patent documents and information onproducts similar to her submitted ideaShe then entered the NPSA for the design andconstruction of a product sample, packaging, and presentation materialShe approved the designof the product sample and subsequently authorized the presentation of her product idea to thedesignated companyShe also completed two questionnaires providing positive feedback; oneabout the design and the second about the presentation materialCopies of her signed approvaland authorization are enclosed (note the actual approved design has been redacted forconfidentiality purposes) as are copies of the questionnairesHer product idea was presented;unfortunately, that company did not license her ideaAn offer of services for presentation toadditional companies was made; Ms*** declinedAt this point, all contracted services hadbeen completed and Ms***’s project was in a “reactive” status, wherein no presentationswould actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided to Ms***.In her complaint, Ms*** makes a number of allegations in an effort to support herclaim for a refundFirst, she alleges she was not informed of the additional fees for additionalpresentationsThis is incorrectThe disclosure that she was provided before any contract wasentered explicitly details the additional service and related fee for additional presentations.Further, the NPSA agreement clearly states:“LThe Client shall not be responsible for any additional expenses to Davison within the scope and term ofthis Agreement, with the possible exception being additional services to present the Idea to an additionaltargeted corporation which may include services to refurbish or repackage the sample, for which Davisoncurrently charges $Davison’s obligations are only those set forth in this Agreement and only directedtowards the targeted corporation named on the last page of this Agreement.”Next, she attempts to raises the FTC case in support of her complaintSetting aside her falsecharacterization of it as a class action and her statement on the amount of the settlement, thatcase simply has no bearing on Ms***’s projectThe case was from 1997, nearly twenty(20) years ago! When she contacted Davison, the company was, and has continued to be, incomplete compliance with all requirements of the Court and the FTCAs such, that case does notprovide any valid basis to support her complaint.As the above response details, Davison has fully disclosed its fees and services beforeMs*** entered any service contract or made any paymentsDavison has performed itsservices with her express written approval and authorizationThe services were provided to herdocumented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunate that the designated company did not license heridea, that fact does not negate the services provided, nor does it give a valid basis for a refund.However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentationsat no cost to Ms***Jf she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the LicensingDepartment who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.David *D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms***regarding the above referenced complaintShe continues to allege that some form of patentservices were to be included in the Pre-Development agreement and states a concern over the costof additional development servicesThese concerns are based on the alleged content of aconversation on May 12, It bears noting that the conversation occurred after completion ofthe services for which she contracted; as those services were completed by April 05, 2016.In her comments, Ms*** states that she understands Davison does “not mailpaperwork from their office for a patent”, but then almost immediately states “I was told my ideawould be sent to the U.SPatent Office.” These statements are conflictingAs stated in the initialresponse, the disclosures provided to her, which detail the services offered, do not include anypatent servicesFurther, the terms of the contract which she entered explicitly states; “Davisonis not responsible for applying for or obtaining any intellectual property protections on theProduct or Design, including but not limited to patents, trademarks and trade names.” Ms.***’s contention that patent services were to be provided is in direct contradiction with thedisclosures and the terms of the contract.Secondly, she alleges concerns over the cost of the additional services offered for thedevelopment of her product ideaAgain, there is no factual basis to support this complaintMs.*** was provided with, and acknowledged having received and read a disclosure of thevarious services and related fees BEFORE she entered any contractTo now, after havingreceived the benefits of the initial pre-development services, allege a concern over the cost of theadditional services as a basis for a refund is disingenuous.There is no factual basis to support Ms***’s complaintShe was fully informedof the services and fees BEFORE she entered any contractThe services for which she contractedhave been performedHer decision to not pursue the further development of her product ideadoes not negate the initial service which was completedThere is no basis for a refund.SincerefDavId MD***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Turning ideas

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 12/10/2015.Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimumFrom
the time of an initial contact andthroughout our process, we maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing ourservices and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval and authorization throughoutthe processOur contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsIt is notpossible to be more upfront with our clients about our services and feesIn her statement,Ms*** states she has received nothing and was misled about the costs associated withthe development of her projectBoth statements are falseAs will be detailed below,Ms*** received the services for which she paid in full and was provided, on multipleoccasions, explicit, clear disclosures of the relevant fees for further development of herproject.Ms*** contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’swebsiteThe system Davison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible fora person to submit an idea without first having two separate disclosures displayed in aprintable and savable format, and the person electronically acknowledging thedisclosuresMs*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she received andread the two disclosure statementsIt is important to note that the disclosures are madeBEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison.Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seek morethan one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting the various services and related feesEnclosed, please find a copy of thedisclosure detailing our services.Following her acknowledgment of the disclosures, Ms*** entered into anagreement for Pre-Development services which obligated Davison to compile researchdata related to her product ideaAs she is a resident of California, the Pre-Developmentcontract again provided the disclosure of the various services and related feesDavisoncompleted the Pre-Development services and forwarded the compiled research to Ms.BanhMs*** acknowledged receipt of these material and completed a questionnaire in which she agreed the research material was professionally prepared and in compliancewith her contractA copy of her signed questionnaire is enclosed.The Pre-Development Agreement states in relevant part (emphasis added);“Section II BProduct Samples; ApprovalsClient is responsible for obtaininga product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product ina professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client's sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide further development services,under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted LicenseeClient is awarethat he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosuresprovided to MsBanh, Davison offered additional services for the development of herprojectMs*** entered into a second contract, the New Product Sample Agreement,for the design and construction of a product sampleThis contract provided a seven dayrevocation period which Ms*** did not invokeShe selected a payment option andhas made a partial payment toward the feeThe contract provides that no services aredue until full payment has been receivedDavison is willing to proceed under the termsof the contract; however there is no basis for a refund if the contract is cancelled afterexpiration of the revocation period.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison has nointerest in retaining fees for services that will not be performedDavison will agree towaive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of the monies paid toward theNew Product Sample AgreementThere is no basis to refund any monies on the Pre-Development Agreement as these services have been performed to MsBanh’sdocumented satisfactionIf Ms*** desires to accept this offer, she need simplycontact our legal department and the paper work will be forwarded to her attention.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 06/13/2017. Initially, please note that when Ms*** contacted Davison in February 2009, she identified herself as *** ***. Her
contact information was located based upon her phone number, city of residence and the time frame of her contact. Second, Ms*** has not entered into any service agreement with Davison, nor has she made any payments to Davison. Accordingly, Davison has not pursued her new product idea and there is no basis for her complaint In her complaint, Ms*** makes two allegations that are false, unsubstantiated and defamatory. She states that her product was for sale on Facebook and alleges that Davison is somehow involved. She provides absolutely nothing to support this defamatory statement. Davison has not pursued her idea, and has no knowledge of what product she is referring to in the complaint. Secondarily, she alleges that she was not informed of the various services and related fees. As will be detailed below, she is mistaken on both countsAll idea submissions to Davison are made pursuant to a Confidentiality Agreement. Davison adheres to this obligation of confidentiality for all submitted ideas, including Ms***’s. However, Davison is neither aware of, nor responsible for, any and every new product idea that might be conceived of by anyone, anywhere, at any time. It is not uncommon for multiple persons to have the same or similar idea. Ms*** contacted Davison in February 2009, it is not reasonable to assume that no other individual could have conceived of a similar idea, either at the time of her disclosure or during the past eight yearsThe express purpose of Davison’s initial pre-development research service is to provide a client with some level of understating of existing prior art. Ms*** did not engage this service, or any other serviceThe electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a person 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 offer of any service contract or payment request. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s 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. Ms*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 02/22/at 19:30:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Also enclosed is a copy of the fee and services disclosure as it was presented to Ms***. It bears noting that the disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s websiteIn summary, Ms*** contacted Davison over eight years ago; she did not enter any contract for services; and she did not make any payments. Davison has not pursued her idea, and has no knowledge of the product she refers to in her complaint. There is no factual basis for her complaint Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc

MsJennifer Gasser Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania
Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 January 22, Re: *** *** Your ID#: *** Dear MsGasser; This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 01/19/2018. Ms*** has been a valued client since contacting Davison in September 2015, and all services have been completedThose services were provided with her express written approval and authorization. Further, the services met with her documented satisfactionUnfortunately, no corporation has been willing to license her product idea. When faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too many clients forget about the services that were provided, and that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk by Davison. Instead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegations. Ms*** entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement. The services were performed with her express written approval and authorization. She approved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentation. Copies of her signed approval and authorization are enclosed. (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) She also completed two questionnaires providing positive feedback; one about the design and the other about the presentation materialCopies of the questionnaires are enclosed. The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea. Ms*** then contracted for a second presentation. The second corporation did not license her product idea. At this point, all contracted services have been completed. Her statement that “They were supposed to be helping me with an invention”, implies that no services were performed. That is simply false, and disregards the services detailed above. To the extent she is implying a guarantee that her product idea would be licensed, she is mistaken. Davison does not guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed, and goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clients. Ms*** was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in; Disclosures: “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential...” The historical licensing data including the number of clients to have received a license and the number of clients who have received a financial gain are provided Pre-Development Agreement: “Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate a License Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or design. Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product;” New Product Sample Agreement: “Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.” “Client acknowledges that Davison has not and will not evaluate the commercial potential of the Idea and that Davison has not disclosed it to anyone. Thus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation will license, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developed. Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.” In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Ms***, her signed approval, signed authorization, and signed questionnaires, any alleged complaint is simply not credible and there is no basis for a refund. However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Ms***. If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations. Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania
Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 February 15, Re: *** *** Your ID#: *** Dear Ms***; This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 02/10/2018. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumMr***’s product sample will be shipped to him by week’s end In his complaint, Mr*** alleges the product sample was to be shipped within three weeks. This is simply not true. When he made his request for the product sample, he was given two options; to have the sample shipped “as is” or, to have it undergo an inspection and repaired, if necessary. Neither option provides for shipment within three weeks. The “as is” option states it will takes a minimum of three weeks to ship, and the inspection option explicitly states there is no predetermined timeframe for shipment. Mr*** selected the inspection option. Enclosed please find his signed selection form. In light of his complaint, and in the interest of customer satisfaction, the inspection process has been expedited. As stated above, his product sample will be shipped out be week’s end. There is no basis for his complaint Sincerely, David ** D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosure

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 01/26/Davisonunderstands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating asuccessful businessCustomer
concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimu** From the time of an initialcontact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of aclient’s idea, the staff tries to maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing the servicesand fees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process.Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when theirproduct ideas are not licensedThat appears to be the simple truth with Mr***.Mr*** first contacted Davison in March by submitting an idea for a newproductHe entered the initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compileresearch on U.SPatents and products, on the market at that time, which were similar to his idea.This research was completedIn January 2014, he contracted for the design and construction of aphysical product sampleAn initial design was created and submitted for his approval in AprilThis initial design did not meet with his approval and Davison agreed to a re-designInNovember 2014, the revised design was provided to Mr***He approved this design andcompleted a questionnaire about the design in which he provided positive feedbackCopies ofhis signed approval and questionnaire are attachedNote the actual approved design has beenredacted for confidentiality purposesBased on his approval, the physical sample wasconstructed and presentation material createdAn Executive Summary, which included aphotograph of the constructed product sample, was provided to him for reviewIn February 2015Mr*** authorized the presentation of his new product ideaEnclosed please find a copy ofhis signed authorizationIn March 2015, the new product idea was presented to the designatedcorporation who declined to enter a licenseMr*** declined the offer to make additionalpresentations and the product sample was shipped to hi**Despite his approvals and authorizations, Mr*** continues to allege the productsample did not meet with his approvalIt is important to note that Davison is not a prototypemanufacturer 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 costeffectivesolution to the problem identified by the clientThe contract which Mr*** enteredexplicitly states the following;“Aiv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncoverproduct design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilitiesTheergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into considerationThis subjective process oftenresults in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial,to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposeddesign is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect currentmanufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the marketOClient acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived andsubmitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will function in themanner and with the attributes as originally conceived by Client.This Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sampleto be produced.”The design created by Davison was approved by Mr***, and he completed a questionnairedocumenting his satisfaction with the designTo now allege disapproval is disingenuous.Davison has performed its service with Mr***’s approval and authorizationDespitethe significant work performed to date, including the re-design, Davison is willing to continue towork with Mr*** to address any and all concerns he may have with his product sampleHisproject is in the process of being reviewed by the Office of the PresidentThat Office willcoordinate any continuing efforts to resolve his concerns.Sincerely,David ** D***Associate Counsel

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** againstDavison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 05/13/Customer concerns upseteveryone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to aminimumFrom
the time of an initial contact and throughout our process, we maintain an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing our services and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval andauthorization throughout the processThe contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsAreview of Mr***’s file indicates that Davison has performed all services with his approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfactionIn his complaint, Mr*** repeatedly claims he waspromised that he would “make money”This is blatantly falseThe disclosures and contracts explicitlystate that there is no guarantee of financial gainThere is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr*** entered into two service contactsThe first was for research which wasprovided to him and about which he completed a questionnaire providing positive feedbackThe secondwas for the creation of a rendering that depicted his product idea and presentation materialMr***approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of his idea and completed questionnairesabout the rendering and presentation material, again providing positive feedbackCopies of his approvals,authorization and completed questionnaires are enclosedHis product idea was presented to the targetedcorporation on 09/09/A copy of the e-mail documenting this presentation is enclosed(Note theactual design and details regarding the product idea have been redacted from the documents forconfidentiality purposes)The corporation chose not to license his ideaAn offer to make additionalpresentations was made to Mr***He has declined this additional service.Mr***’s complaint contains numerous mischaracterizations and statements that need to beaddressed;He states that he paid for an “evaluation” of his product ideaThis is falseDavisondoes not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potentialThedisclosure provided to Mr***, BEFORE he entered any contract, states thisexplicitly, as do the contracts he enteredHe claims Davison was to “make it [his product idea] for me” and that KettleInternational was the manufacturerThis is falseHis contract was for the creation of arendering depicting his product idea; not for the construction of a physical productsample*** was the target corporation to whom his product idea would bepresented in an effort to secure a license agreementHe claims Davison never contacted ***This is falseAs the enclosed e-maildocuments, Mr***’s idea was presented on 09/09/Follow up contacts with*** were made on 11/10/and 02/11/He claims Davison has not followed up with himThis is falseDavison’s recordsdocument no less than eight contacts (calls or e-mails) with Mr*** during the periodof 11/17/to 05/01/As stated above, Mr*** has declined any additionalservicesHe claims he was promised that he would make moneyThis is falseDavisonprovides disclosures to its clients, before any contract in entered, that detail thehistorical success rates for securing a license agreement and for obtaining a financialgainFurther the contracts explicitly state that Davison does not guarantee that aparticular product idea will be licensed or will result in a financial gainMr*** raises the issue of the FTC case as grounds for his complaintThis isbaselessThe FTC case was from 1997, nearly eighteen (18) years ago and fifteen (15)years before Mr*** contacted DavisonAs noted above, when Mr*** firstcontacted Davison, he was provided with, and signed, the Affirmative Disclosurerequired by the Court as part of the FTC caseAs such, that case does not provide anyvalid basis to support his complaint.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr***’s express written approval andauthorization and to his documented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunate that the targeted corporationchose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided servicesThe simple fact is thatthe product development process provides no guarantees of financial gainOur contracts and disclosuresare explicit in this regardWhile 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 tothe client does not invalidate the services that were providedHowever, in the interest of customersatisfaction, we will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept thisoffer, he need only contact our Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork toauthorize the presentations.Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** againstDavison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 03/Customer concerns upseteveryone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to aminimumFrom
the time of an initial contact and throughout our process, we maintain an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing our services and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval andauthorization throughout the processOur contracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsInhis complaint, Mr*** raises a concern over the fee for the additional service ofrepackaging/refurbishing of the product sample for presentation to an additional corporation, and he allegesthe product sample did not meet his approvalAs will be detailed below, Mr*** was advised of thereferenced fee at least three times and Davison has performed its services with his express writtenauthorizationWhile it is unfortunate that his product idea was not licensed, that fact does not provide abasis for a refund.Fee Disclosure:Mr*** contacted Davison about a new product idea through Davison’s websiteThe systemDavison utilizes for electronic submissions makes it impossible for a person to submit an idea without firsthaving two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format, and the person electronicallyacknowledging the disclosuresMr*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature on 30/2012, thathe received and read the two disclosure statementsIt is important to note that the disclosures are madeBEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to DavisonAmong the disclosuresis the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seek more than one contract in connection with asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and related feesEnclosed,please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and feesAs Mr*** is a resident ofCalifornia, these disclosures are again provided as part of the Pre-Development AgreementA copy of thissecond disclosure is attachedFinally, as part of the New Product Sample Agreement, the fee is againdisclosed in Section 4.Lwhich states; “The Client shall not be responsible for any additional expenses toDavison within the scope and term of this Agreement, with the possible exception being additional servicesto refUrbish or repackage the sample, for which Davison currently charges $385.00.” For Mr*** toallege he was not informed of the fee is simply baseless.Product Sample:Mr*** entered into a contract for the design and construction of a product sample andpresentation material based upon his submitted ideaIt is important to note that Davison is not a prototypemanufacturer that creates a product sample based upon the client’s preconceived notionsDavison is adesign and development firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to theproblem identified by the clientThe contract which Mr*** entered explicitly states the following;“IAiv) Preliminary Product Design: Development Team ‘brainstorming sessions will be held to uncoverproduct design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation’s manufacturing capabilitiesThe ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into considerationThis subjective process oftenresults in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial,to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client’s proposeddesign is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect currentmanufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the marketClient acknowledges that there have been no representations by Davison that the Idea as conceived andsubmitted by Client is novel or feasible or that the design to be created by Davison will hinction in themanner and with the attributes as originally conceived by ClientThis Agreement does not contain orincorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sampleto be produced.”Davison performed its initial design of the product sample and submitted an integrated productrendering for Mr***’s approval on or about 1114/Initially, he did not approve of the design.Following numerous discussions, Mr*** did provide his approval of the design on 02/22/A copyof his signed approval is attached(Note the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes).At the time he provided his approval, he also completed a questionnaire in which he provided negativefeedbackHaving received contradictory feedback, Mr*** was asked to clari~’ his positionOn12/he provided a letter giving Davison authorization to move forward with his projectA copy ofhis letter is attachedIn reliance on his authorization, the physical product sample and packaging wereconstructed and presentation materials, including an Executive Briefing, were createdIt is important tonote that the Executive Briefing contained an actual photograph of the physical product sample andpackagingOn 08/14, Mr*** authorized the presentation of his product ideaA copy of theauthorization is enclosedTo now allege the product sample did not meet with his approval is contrary tothe documented evidence.The presentation was made to the target corporation on 12/Unfortunately the companydeclined to license the product ideaConsistent with the disclosures and contract terms, an offer foradditional services for presentation to a new corporation was offeredMr*** has declined this service.At his request, the product sample was shipped to his attention on 04/23/His complaint followed.As stated, Mr*** was fully informed of all services, and their related fees, offered byDavison, BEFORE he entered into any service contractThe services have been performed with hisexpress written approval and authorizationWhile it is unfortunate that the targeted corporation chose notto pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided servicesThere is no basis to warrant arefund for services renderedThe simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees offinancial gainOur contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is of little comfort to aclient who 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 that wereprovidedHowever, in the interest of customer satisfaction, we will offer two additional presentations at nocost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department whowill coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Turnin ideas into productsSincerelyAssociate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 06/03/ 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” provisionsIt is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project.Mr*** initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website 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, and the client acknowledging that they have received and read the disclosuresIt is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to DavisonThe disclosures provide a listing of the various services and related fees as well as the historical licensing dataFollowing his acknowledgement of the disclosures, Mr. *** entered the initial pre-development contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.SPatents and products, which were similar to his ideaThis research was completed and provided to hi** He completed a questionnaire acknowledging that the service was professional and performed in accordance with the contractA copy of the signed questionnaire is enclosedSubsequently, he entered an Integrated Product Rendering and Presentation (IPRP) agreement for the design of a rendering of his product idea and creation of presentation materialMr*** has made partial payment toward the fee, though a balance remainsService is not due to be performed until receipt of the full fee.Mr***’s complaint makes numerous misstatementsInitially, he alleges he received a letter from Davison indicating that a provisional patent would be forwarded to his attentionThis is incorrectDavison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services, or any other legal servicesThe disclosures which he acknowledged having read do not list any patent or legal servicesThe contracts he entered do not provide for any patent or legal services In fact the pre-development contract explicitly states; “Davison is not responsible for applying for or obtaining intellectual property protection on the Product or Design including but not limited to patents, trademarks or trade names.” Also, the IPRP contracts states: “Davison is not responsible for applying for, assisting with, or obtaining any intellectual property protections on the Product or Design, including but not limited to patents, trademarks and trade namesThe Inventor is solely responsible for the completion, sufficiency and timeliness of any application.” The letter to which Mr*** refers, states that Davison will provide information that he may find useful in filing a provisional applicationSecondly, he alleges the payment receipt for the predevelopment contract was not sent to hi** This is falseThe records indicate the receipt was e-mailed to both his prior and current e-mail addressHowever, in light of his complaint, the payment receipt has again been emailed to his current e-mail addressFinally, he alleges an entitlement to a full refundThere is no basis for this positionThe initial pre-development services have been performed to his documented satisfactionThe IPRP agreement provided a seven day revocation period in which it could have been cancelled and a full refund provided Mr*** did not invoke this provisionThe contract further states; “If the Agreement is cancelled, revoked or terminated after the seven business day period, there will be no refund of any amount paid towards the contract fee.” There is simply no basis for a refund.There is no factual basis to support Mr***’s complaintAs stated above, he was fully informed of the services and fees BEFORE he entered any contractThe pre-development service has been performed to his documented satisfactionThe IPRP contract was not cancelled within the stated period, thus there is no basis for a refundBased upon his expressed desire to terminate his relationship with Davison, Mr***’s project has been cl***d.Despite having no contractual obligation to process a refund, Davison has no interest in retaining fees for services that will not be performedDavison will agree to waive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of the monies paid toward the IPRP agreementThere is no basis to refund any monies on the pre-development agreement as these services have been performed to Mr***’s documented satisfactionIf Mr*** desires to accept this offer, he need simply contact Davison’s legal department and the paper work will be forwarded to his attention.Sincerely, David ** D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

January 17, 2017Re: *** ***Your ID#: ***Dear Mr***;This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 01/09/Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to
troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumUnfortunately, after having reviewed Mr***’s file, a breakdown in communication is precisely what occurredSpecifically, the representative assigned to work with Mr*** had ended their employment and his project was not reassignedHis project has now been assigned to an Executive Vice President who will be in contact with him promptlyDavison extends its apology for this breakdown.The following brief summary of events is provided as a full disclosure of events and is not intended as an attempt to excuse the lack of communicationMr*** contacted Davison by submitting an idea for a new productHe entered the initial pre-development agreement and those services were performedHe completed a questionnaire about these initial services, providing positive feedbackA copy of the questionnaire is enclosedSubsequently, he entered an agreement for the creation of an integrated product rendering to depict his new ideaOn 03/18/2016, Mr*** informed Davison that he would be unavailable through the end of April 2016; as such no calls were scheduled for that time periodThe representative assigned to his project ended her employment and his project was not re-assignedPrior to receiving the current complaint, there has been no communication either to, or from, Mr***A copy of Davison’s phone log is enclosed.As stated, Davison extends its apology for its part in the breakdown of communicationMr***’s file has been re-assigned to an Executive Vice President for prompt handling.Sincerely, David *D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

Dear Ms***, I have been trying to work thru you to resolve an issue with Davidson Corporations Inventionland CompanyI responded to the last three emails they sent which the last was a final request for them to present an offerThey seem to keep referring to my satisfaction and to that form they checked off and insisted they would go no further to base, unless I sent it back blankKnowing not to do so, I checked off not satisfied, and they know that, as they received it and I have a copy of that form with the date and time stamp from where I faxed itThey contacted me and said they didn’t receive it, Ted M*** **Got upset and said just fax it or we cant go furtherI then returned to the store where I faxed fromThe manager was a little suspicious of the company saying they hadn’t received as we had a report saying they didI explained to he, my husband, and , my daughter that TED M*** **again, said mail a blank form or we cant get to the baseI felt odd but there ya goI sent a blank, they check off and use against meOKAY, strange enough there but here we go but my thought was So If I do send a blank, I have witnesses so they really cant mess with me, but they areOf course if This goes into court, I will bring all witnesses to this, as with documentation. Getting beyond this point however is the actual inventionIt seems somewhat astounding to me that a company would treat a disabled elderly person this way but this is how companies have been getting rich these days in America, ripping off their fellow countrymenHaving said that, there are laws which allow me to sue anytime over the next two years over this case. I will ask one more time if Davidson wants to do right by me which is to either give me engineered drawings of a working prototype so I can file my pattern, I wont use their packaging and marketing systems, Ill relieve them of that Obligation, and release any rights to my inventionNow I was willing to look at what sort of alternatives they are offering and its not even in the same Vein of what we were discussing as a functioning bottomNow another company has done so with a drinking cupIt can be done, TED M*** **said it could be done, now Im to except what ever they want to give me? HMMMM I don’t think a judge would agreeI have emails from Ted, recordings from TED and he is told he is being recorded, and I have hard copies he has sentI will not present anything thru you as I feel this amount of effort goes straight to COURT

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday
Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 November 28, Re: *** *** Your ID#: *** Dear Ms*** This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 11/22/Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Davison discloses, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of new product development, and provides contracts that are simply written, with no “fine print” provisions. It is not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development of their project. The research services for which she contracted were performed and she has not engaged any further services. There is no basis for a refund, nor support for the complaint Ms*** contacted Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 09/01/2017. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s 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 disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the disclosure as it was provided to Ms*** and the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 09/01/at 20:18:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. It bears noting that the disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s website. Ms*** entered into the initial pre-development contract for the performance of research related to her submitted idea. The services under the pre-development contract were completed. 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. In her complaint, Ms*** suggests she was not aware of the fee for the additional development services prior to receiving the contract for those servicesThat is false. As detailed above and in the attached disclosure, the fees were provided to her during the initial submission process. Further, Davison did offer a discount on the fee for the additional services as an incentive for prompt payment of the full contract fee. Respectfully, it is not reasonable to characterize the offer of a discount as a “high pressure” tactic. Next, she states a concern over the existence of similar productsThere are literally millions of issued patent in the United States alone, millions of filed applications that do not result in issued patents, millions of patents and patent applications filed in foreign jurisdictions, and millions of products in the market place It is not uncommon for multiple people to have the same, or similar, idea. The purpose of the pre-development service is two-fold; first, to provide the client with some understanding of the nature and extent of the “prior art” so that they may be more informed before deciding to pursue further development of their idea; and second to provide guidance to the design team to ensure the proposed product design does not conflict with a third party’s rights. There is no reasonable basis for her to complain that the prior art search revealed similar items. Finally, she comments about the ability to patent her idea and Davison’s confidence in her idea. Simply put, Davison does not evaluate ideas. The disclosure and the contract terms are explicit that regard. The disclosure states; “Davison does not offer evaluations of idea submissions for commercial potential”. The contract states; “Client acknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client's Product to be marketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product; thus, its agreement to accept an interest in future potential payments due to Client is not a representation by Davison that the development of the Product will yield payments to Client.” To the extent she believes an evaluation was performed, she is mistaken There is no factual basis to support Ms***’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. Additional development services were offered and declined. There is no basis for a refund for services rendered Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures