Paint Solutions

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania
Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 February 12, 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 02/06/2018. Mr*** has been a valued client since he, and his wife, contacted Davison in October 2012, and all services have been completedThose services were provided with Mr***’s express written approval and authorization. Further, the services met with his documented satisfactionUnfortunately, no corporation has been willing to license his 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. 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 disclosures then provide, among other items, a listing of the various services and related fees. Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to the ***sThe client acknowledges, via electronic signature, that the disclosures have been received and readEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming the acknowledgement on 10/18/at 12:00:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes Mr*** entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development and Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample Agreement. The services were performed with his express written approval and authorization. He approved the design of his product sample and authorized its presentation. Copies of his signed approval and authorization are enclosed. (Note the actual approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.) He also completed two questionnaires 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. Mr*** then contracted for a second presentation. The second corporation did not license his product idea. At this point, all contracted services have been completed. As recent as January 30, 2018, Davison and Mr*** had discussions regarding the pursuit of additional services. There was no concern or issue raised by him at that time. In his complaint, Mr*** raised three issues. First, he alleges he received no proof of the construction of his product sample. That is incorrect. The Executive Briefing, about which he provided positive feedback, contained a photograph of the physical sample. The contract explicitly states that Davison is to retain possession of the sample unless requested by the client in writing. If Mr*** wishes to receive the product sample, he need only forward a request to the Licensing Department. Second, he requests proof of the presentationsAttached, please find the e-mail responses from the two corporations to which his product idea was presentedNote the specific contact person and information unrelated to his project has been redacted. Finally, he raises a concern over the fee charged for the creation of presentation material for a new corporation. The disclosure that was provided before any service contract was entered clearly lists this service, and its fee. A copy of that disclosure is attached. Also, the express terms of the New Product Sample Agreement states that the client is responsible for the fee for such services. Any allegation that he was unaware of this fee is baseless Davison has provided a complete disclosure of all services and fees. It has performed its services according to the contracts. The services have been performed with the client’s approval and authorization. The services have been performed to his documented satisfaction. There is no basis for his complaint. However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr***. If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations. Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

Revdex.com:Attention! *** Dear ***,Please see below. Davison Design & Development, Incwas supposed to present my product to two more manufacturesMsB*** send me attached document which doesn’t much their offer.Please advise.Best Regards,*** ***Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhoneBegin forwarded message:On Thursday, December 21, 2017, 10:AM, Vicky B*** wrote:Hi ***, As a follto our conversation, please find attached the paperwork that will outline your options regarding the *** ***. Please take some time to consider the option that is best, and when you're ready, please let me know. As a courtesy, I'll also follin a week's time if I don't hear from you before then. Creatively Yours, Vicky B***Director of Licensing *** *** *** * *** *** *** * *** * ** ***
*** *** *** * *** ***
*** ***
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 03/31/
At the outset, it should be clarified that Mr*** *** is not a client of
Davison; his father, *** ***, is the
client. Mr*** ***’s complaint falsely claims
that he signed the relevant contract along with his father. Only *** *** signed the contract, only
*** *** is a client, and Davison’s obligations are to Mr*** ***. What communication may have
occurred between *** *** and his son *** is neither within the control
or the responsibility of DavisonAs will be detailed below, *** *** was
informed of the services and fees, BEFORE entering any contract for
services. The research services for
which he contracted were performed and he has not engaged any further
services. There is no basis for a
refund, nor support for the complaint
Customer
concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so
communication errors are kept to a minimum.
From the time of an initial contact and throughout the development and
presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel of communication,
disclosing, in advance, its services and fees, the risks of new product
development, and providing contracts that are simply written, with no “fine
print” provisions. It is not possible
to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the
development of their project
Mr*** *** first contacted Davison by
submitting an idea through its website on 09/18/2011. 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. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature,
that he both received and read these disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the disclosure
as it was provided to *** *** and the data record confirming his
acknowledgement on 09/18/at 20:29:ESTNote the submitted idea has been
redacted for confidentiality purposes. It
bears noting that the disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s
website. At that time, Mr*** did
not enter any contract for services.
He
subsequently entered into the initial pre-development contract on
07/06/2016. This contract was for the
performance of research related to his submitted idea. Relevant sections of that Agreement include;
“Section 1.A.:
…if Client contracts with
Davison for design and product sample preparation services, which are not
covered by this Agreement…
…Davison is exclusively
responsible for the costs associated with presenting the Product to a Licensee,
which costs do not include designing, building or refurbishing a product
sample.” and
“Section
II.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 expense
Davison, at its option, will
offer to provide further development services, under a separate contract for a
separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation
material for the targeted LicenseeClient is aware that he or she is free to
obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtain them at all.”
Mr***
entered the initial pre-development contract, and those services were
performedConsistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the
disclosures provided to him, Davison offered additional services for the
further development of his project. He declined
these additional services, which is his prerogative.
Mr
*** *** states in his complaint that he was not informed of the cost for
the additional services. Again, he is
not the client. As detailed above, the
actual client *** *** was fully informed of the additional services and
fees before entering any contract. Mr
*** *** next complains that any fee is charged for services. Davison provides specific and clearly
explained services and charges a clearly stated fee for those services. The contention that services should be
offered for free is simply not reasonable.
Finally, he makes thoroughly false, unsubstantiated, and defamatory
claims regarding the confidentiality of his father’s idea. All idea submissions to Davison are made
pursuant to a Confidentiality Agreement.
Davison adheres to this obligation of confidentiality for all submitted
ideas, including his father’s idea.
However, Davison is neither aware of, nor responsible for, any and every
new product idea that might be conceived of by anyone, anywhere. It is not uncommon for multiple persons to
have the same or similar idea
There is no factual basis
to support Mr*** ***’s complaint.
As stated above, his father *** ***, who is the contracting
client, was fully informed of all the services and fees. *** *** 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 he contracted have been performed.
Additional development services
were offered and declined. As noted in
the complaint, *** *** attempted unilaterally to obtain a refund through
his credit card company. Based on the
information provide above, his claim was denied in favor of Davison. There is no basis for a refund for services
rendered
Sincerely,
David *D***
Associate Counsel
Davison Design and
Development, Inc
Enclosures

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Ms.*** regarding the above referenced complaintShe acknowledges receipt of therefund of her payment for the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA), but continues todemand a refund for the Pre-Development Agreement (PD)There is no basis to supporther demand.As stated in the initial response, Ms*** entered two separate servicecontracts, the PD and the NPSAServices under the PD were performed to herdocumented satisfactionA copy of her signed questionnaire, in which she acknowledgesthe services were completed in accordance with the contract, was included in the initialresponseThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered to her documentedsatisfactionAs for the NPSA, she has acknowledged her receipt of the refund.The complaint should be closed as “resolved”.SincereyDavid ** D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 08/15/Theallegations in her complaint of her being misled and deceived have no factual basisFrom thetime of an initial contact, through
the research and development of a new product idea, to thepresentation of a client’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing theservices and fees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout theprocessThe disclosures and contracts are simply written with no “fine print” provisionsIt issimply not possible to be more upfront about the fees, services and risksUnfortunately, despitebest efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are notlicensed.Briefly stated, Ms*** entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Developmentand Representation Agreement, and the New Product Sample AgreementPrior to making anypayment to Davison, she was provided with, and acknowledged receiving, two disclosuresdetailing the various services, fees and historical licensing dataCopies of the disclosures,bearing her signature, are enclosedThe disclosures are also freely available on Davison’swebsiteThe services were performed with her express written approval and authorizationSheapproved the design of her product sample and authorized its presentationCopies of her signedapproval and authorization are enclosed(Note the actual approved design has been redacted forconfidentiality purposes.) The product idea was presented to the designated company who chosenot to license the product ideaAn offer of the additional service to make an additionalpresentation was declined by Ms***, which is her prerogativeThis complaint followed.In her complaint, she makes two incorrect claims; one that she was told her productwould be licensed, and second, that there was no additional fee beyond the initial PreDevelopment contract feeAs will be detailed, Ms*** was repeatedly infonned of the risksof the product development process as well as the potential for additional services and theirrelated fees.Product license: The simple truth is; there is no guarantee that a particular product ideawill be licensed, much less a guarantee of a financial gainDavison does not provide evaluationsof the commercial potential of a product idea, much less any form of guarantee that a particularproduct will be licensedDavison goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clientsMs.*** was repeatedly provided with this information, specifically in;Disclosures:“Davison does n~! 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 whohave received a financial gain are providedIke-Development Agreement:“Client acknowledges that Davison has made no claim or warranty that Davison will be able to consummate aLicense Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or designClientacknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Client’s Product to bemarketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product;”New Product Sample Agreement“Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receiveany 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 thatDavison has not disclosed it to anyoneThus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation willlicense, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developedClient acknowledges that Davison has made norepresentations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability”Additional Services and Fees: From the outset, Davison discloses that it offers a varietyof services and details the related feesMs*** was repeatedly provided with thisinformation, specifically in;Disclosures:“It is Davison’s practice to seek more than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.”A listing of the various services offered and their related fees are provided.Pre-Development Agreement:“Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packaging and relevant information about the product in aprofessional format for presentation to a Licensee at Clients sole expense Davison, at its option, will offer toprovide further development services, under a separate contract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creatingthe sample and presentation material for the targeted Licensee.”New Product Sample Agreement:“The Client shall not be responsible for any additional expenses to Davison within the scope and term of thisAgreement, with the possible exception being additional services to present the Idea to an additional targetedcorporation which may include services to refurbish or repackage the sample, for which Davison currently charges$Davison’s obligations are only those set forth in this Agreement and only directed towards the targetedcorporation named on the last page of this Agreement.In light of the numerous disclosures provided to Ms***, her contention that she wasmisled is simply not credibleFurther there is no basis to support her demand to get her product“out there”However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additionalpresentations at no cost to Ms***If she chooses to accept this offer, she need only contactthe Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.SincerelDavid * D***

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/Davison understands that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating a successful businessCustomer
concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact, through the research and development of a new product idea, to the presentation of a client’s idea, an open channel of communication is maintained, disclosing the services and fees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the process Unfortunately, despite best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensedThat appears to be the simple truth with Mr***.MrB*** submitted an idea through Davison’s websiteThe 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 formatIt 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 of the various services and related fees, as well as the historical licensing dataEnclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented to Mr***He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read these disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 11/13/at 13:48:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary followsHe contracted for the initial pre-development research services which were completedSubsequently, he entered into a contract for the design and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentation materialDavison submitted a design of the product sample to Mr*** which he approvedIn reliance upon his approval of the design, Davison constructed the product sample, packaging and created presentation materialsAn Executive Briefing was created which contained an actual photograph of the constructed product sampleAfter receipt of the Executive Briefing, MrB*** authorized the presentation of his product idea to the targeted corporation At that time, he also completed a questionnaire in which he provided positive feedback about the Executive BriefingThe presentation of his product idea was made; unfortunately the corporation chose not to license the ideaThe additional service of an additional presentation was offered to MrB*** and he declinedEnclosed please find a copy of his signed approval, authorization and completed questionnaireNote the approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.In his complaint, Mr*** makes numerous mischaracterizations that will be addressedFirst he states that Davison was to “market” his ideaThis is incorrectDavison does not “market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public; they design and develop product ideas for presentation to corporations, who in turn may manufacture and market the product Next, he claims the Davison only created a drawing of his ideaThat is falseThe contract was for the design and construction of a physical product sample, packaging and presentation materialThe Executive Briefing which was provided to him included an actual photograph of the physical product sampleThe contact explicitly states; “Client intends that Davison will retain possession of the product and packaging sample, unless Client requests otherwise in writing.” Mr*** has not requested the physical sampleThird, he expresses a complaint over the fee for additional presentationsDavison had offered to provide this additional service and there is a related fee which was fully disclosed to MrB***This fee was disclosed to him as part of the initial disclosure when he first submitted his idea, and it is explicitly referenced in the contractFinally, Mr*** references “promises”, implying some form of a guarantee of a license or financial gainThe simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gainDavison does not make such guaranteesThe express terms of the contracts are explicit that Davison make no representation about the likelihood of financial gainThe New Product Sample Agreement which Mr*** entered contains the following provisions:“Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receive any financial gain from the development of the Idea.”“Client acknowledges thatthere 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 developedClient acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”As stated, the design, construction, and presentation of Mr***’s product sample have been performed with his express written approval and authorization and to his documented satisfactionNo additional contracts have been entered and no additional payments have been receivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services renderedThe fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were providedHowever, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Sincerely, David ** D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 06/2015.Customer concerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a
minimumFrom the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe process, Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services andfees upfront and securing the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the processThecontracts are simply written, with no “fine print” provisionsUnfortunately, despite its bestefforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied, particularly when their product ideas are not licensed.As will be detailed below, Davison has performed its services with Mr***’s approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfactionThere are no grounds for a refundA briefsummary of events is provided to give a complete view of his project.07/14/12: Mr*** submits his idea to Davison and acknowledges having receivedand read two disclosures with detailed all offered services, fees and historicaldata regarding the securing of license agreements for clients.07/24/12: Mr*** enters into the Pre-Development and RepresentationAgreementDavison subsequently performs these services and provides theresearch data to him on or about 08/31/2012.09/08/12: Mr*** completes a questionnaire in which he states the Idea toProduct Portfolio was completed in accordance with the contractAcopy of the questionnaire is attached.10/21/2013: Mr*** enters into a New Product Sample Agreement for theconstruction of a product sample.01/06/2014: Mr*** approves the design, and completes a questionnaire inwhich he provided positive feedbackA copy of his approval and thecompleted questionnaire are attachedPlease note the actual approved designhas been redacted for confidentiality purposes.03312014: In reliance upon his approval of the design, Davison completes theconstruction of the product sample and presentation materials which aresubmitted to Mr*** for approvalThe Executive Briefing containedan actual photograph of the constructed product sampleMr***authorized the presentation of his product idea and completed aquestionnaire about the Executive Briefing materials in which heprovided positive feedback A copy of his authorization and the completedquestionnaire are attached2014: Davison makes the presentation of Mr***’s product idea2014: The corporation informs Davison that they have declined to license the ideaand Mr*** is informedAdditional services are offered to Mr.***, which he declines.As the above chronology indicates, each step of the process has been performed with Mr.*** ‘ s express written approval and authorizationFurther, throughout the process he hasprovided written documentation of his satisfaction with the servicesHis first noted concern wason 07/01/At that time he demanded that his product sample be re-designed, despite the factthat the product sample was constructed per his approval and was already presented and underreview.Following the completion of all services on 07/15/2014, there was no contact from Mr.*** until 06/25/2015, when Davison received a letter demanding a full refundIn response,Davison attempted to schedule a call for Mr*** with the Office of the PresidentMr.*** declined such a call, stating he had “nothing to talk about”On 07/07/2015, Davisonreceived the current complaint from your office.As detailed above, Davison has performed its services with Mr***’s approval,authorization and to his documented satisfactionThere is no basis to warrant a refund forservices renderedThe simple fact is; the product development process provides no guarantees offinancial gainDavison’s contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is oflittle comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into aproject, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does notinvalidate the services that were providedThe complaint sets forth no basis to warrant a refundfor services rendered to the client’s documented satisfactionHowever, in the interest ofcustomer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentations at no cost to Mr***.If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact our Licensing Department who willcoordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize the presentations.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 11/18/Customerconcerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimu**
From the time of an initial contact and throughout the process,Davison maintains an open channel of communication, disclosing its services and fees upfrontand securing its clients’ approval and authorization throughout the processThe contracts aresimply written, with no “fine print” provisionsA review of Mr***’s file indicates thatDavison has performed all services with his approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfactionIt bears noting that all services were completed by September Now, over ayear later, he has filed this complaintThe significant delay in presenting his concerns bears onthe credibility of his contentionsThere is no support for his complaint.Briefly stated, Mr*** contacted Davison in August At the time of his initialcontact, he was provided with two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savableformatMr*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he received and read the twodisclosure statementsIt is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Cliententers any service contract or makes any payment to DavisonAmong the disclosures is thestatement that “It is Davison’s practice to seek more than one contract in connection witha submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing the various services and related fees.Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the servicesMr*** then enteredinto two service contactsThe first was for pre-development research which was provided tohi** The second was for the creation of a rendering that depicted his product idea andpresentation materialMr*** approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentationof his idea and completed questionnaires about the rendering and presentation material, providingpositive feedbackHis product idea was presented to the targeted corporation on 03/28/14.The corporation chose not to license his ideaAn offer to make additional presentations wasmade to Mr***He declined this additional service and decided to take a “reactive”approach, i.eto wait to see if a corporation was to approach Davison with a request for a productsimilar to hisCopies of his approvals, authorization, completed questionnaires, and selection ofthe reactive approach are enclosedThere has been no contact with Mr*** since September2014.In his complaint, Mr*** alleges he contracted for assistance in “creating a model” ofhis product ideaTo the extent his statement implies the construction of a physical productsample, he is mistakenThe language in the contract, from its title to the specific terms, is clearthat a graphic representation of his product idea, i.ea rendering, depiction, design, was to bedevelopedNo term refers to the construction of a physical product sampleFurther, thedisclosure form which was provided to him clearly indicates the separate services of the creationof a product rendering versus the construction of a product sampleMr*** also contendsthat he contracted for assistance to ‘market the idea’This is incorrectDavison does not“market” its clients’ product ideas to the general public, they design and develop product ideasfor presentation to corporations who in turn may manufacture and market the productFinally,Mr*** complains of the fee associated with the service of making an additional presentationto a new corporationAs stated, Davison had offered to provide this additional service, and thereis a fee for this serviceMr*** was advised of this fee BEFORE he entered any servicecontract as it was disclosed to him as part of the initial disclosure provided to him in August2013.As stated, all services have been performed with Mr***’s express written approvaland authorization, and to his documented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunate that the targetedcorporation chose not to pursue his product idea, that fact does not negate the provided services.The simple fact is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain.The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardWhile this is of little comfort to a clientwho has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotion into a project, the fact that aparticular project does not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services thatwere providedHowever, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer twoadditional presentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need onlycontact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincertic,David ** 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 05/10/At the outset,it should be made clear that while Mr*** had been a client of Davison, he terminated hiscontract on 09/08/
Prior to this complaint, there has been no communication from Mr.*** in the more than eight (8) months since his cancellation.Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimumFrom the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simplywritten, with no “fine print” provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorizationItis not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development oftheir projectMr***’s allegation that he was not informed of the fee for the service contracthe entered is simply falseA review of his file indicates that he was provided with theinformation on no less than seven (7) occasions.Mr*** initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its website on06/The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable formatIt is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client entersany service contract or makes any payment to DavisonThe disclosures provide a listing of thevarious services and related feesEnclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing theservices and related feesMr*** acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he receivedand read the two disclosure statementsFollowing his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr.*** entered the initial Pre-Development and Representation agreementSection IIAof thatagreement explicitly states the fee of $Mr*** made a series of five partial paymentstoward the feeAfter each payment, he was provided a written receipt detailing the fee of$795.00, the amount that has been paid, and the outstanding balanceHis position that he was notinformed of the fee is simply not valid.AgreementAs he had not made full payment, services were not due to be performedSeveralattempts to contact Mr*** were made to see if he would like to resume the agreementAspreviously stated, there has been no communication from Mr***, until this complaint.Mr***’s allegation that the fees were not disclosed to him is simply falseAs statedabove, every individual who submits an idea through Davison’s website is provided with, andacknowledges having received and read, the disclosuresFurther, the contract he entered and thepayment receipts provided to him, all detail the fee amountHis decision to cancel the contractwell after the revocation period does not provide a basis for a refundIf Mr*** would like tore-engage Davison’s services, he need only contact his Davison representative and voice that

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 08/04/2016.Regrettably, his complaint is a defamatory mischaracterization of the services provided and itdoes not contain any factual support
for his malicious commentsFrom 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 licensed.The new product development process is a high risk ventureThere is no guarantee that aparticular product idea will be licensed, much less a guarantee of a financial gainDavison goesto great lengths to disclose the risks to all individuals who may submit an idea for a new product.In addition to disclosing all of its services and fees upfront, the historical success rates of securinga license and of realizing a financial gain are providedThe contracts for services repeatedlyprovide disclosures that there is no guarantee that a product will be licensed, or that a client willrealize a financial gainWhen faced with an outcome not meeting their expectations, too manyclients forget that they knowingly undertook a risk after being fully informed of the risk byDavisonInstead, they lash out with unsubstantiated allegationsAs will be detailed below,Davison performed its services with Mr***’s approval and authorizationFurther, Mr.*** provided documentation of his satisfaction with the servicesThere is no basis tosupport his demand for a refund, much less to support his defamatory statements.Mr*** submitted an idea through Davison’s websiteThe electronic submissionsystem utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having twoseparate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable formatIt is important to note that thedisclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment toDavisonAmong the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s practice to seekmore than one contract in connection with a submitted idea.” The disclosure then provides alisting of the various services and related fees, as well as the historical licensing dataEnclosed,please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it was presented toMr***He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both received and read thesedisclosuresAlso enclosed is a copy of the data record confirming his acknowledgement on08/04/at 05:27:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentialitypurposes.With regard to the services that were provided, a brief summary followsHe contractedfor the initial pre-development research services which were completedAs Mr*** is aresident of Texas, the disclosures that were provided to him at the time of his idea submission(detailing the various services, fees and historical success rates) were again provided within theterms of the pre-development contractFollowing his receipt of the research material, Mr.*** completed a questionnaire on 10/28/noting his satisfaction with the serviceAcopy of his signed questionnaire is enclosedSubsequently, he entered into a contract for thedesign and construction of a product sample, packaging and presentation materialDavisonsubmitted a design of the product sample to Mr*** which he approvedIn reliance uponhis approval of the design, Davison constructed the product sample, packaging and createdpresentation materialsAn Executive Briefing was created which contained an actual photographof the constructed product sampleAfter receipt of the Executive Briefing, Mr***authorized the presentation of his product idea to the targeted corporationAt that time, he alsocompleted a second questionnaire in which he provided positive feedback about the ExecutiveBriefingThe presentation of his product idea was made; unfortunately the corporation has notlicensed the ideaAt his request, the physical product sample was shipped to him on or about03/15/Enclosed please find a copy of his signed approval, authorization and completedquestionnaireNote the approved design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes.Mr***’s allegations of deception, delay and termination of services are simply notsupported by the factsDavison has performed all of its services in a prompt and professionalmannerHis allegation of a non-functional sample is suspectDespite having received thesample in March, there has been no concern raised by Mr*** about the sample before thiscomplaintIf the sample is in fact non-functional, he may return it to Davison for inspection andrepairHowever, Davison is not responsible for any damage that may have occurred in shippingor through misuse of the sample.As stated, all services related to the research, design, construction, and presentation ofMr***’s product sample have been performed with his express written approval andauthorization and to his documented satisfactionNo additional contracts have been entered andno additional payments have been receivedThere is no basis to warrant a refund for servicesrendered and certainly no basis for his mischaracterizationsThe fact that a particular projectdoes not bring financial gain to the client does not invalidate the services that were provided.However, in the interest of customer satisfaction, Davison will offer two additional presentationsat no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact the LicensingDepartment who will Coordinate the neccesary paperwork to authorize the presentations

Further to your e-mail dated December 14, 2016, enclosing Davison's response to my Complaint, I hereby submit the following: 1. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its breach of the Pre-Development Representation Agreement (PDRA)As such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the terms of the PDRA. 2. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its neglect to ensure that a Provisional Application was filed for *** ***. As such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the terms stated in its letter dated March 30, 2012 3. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its breach of the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA)As such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the terms of the NPSA. 4. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its failure to secure protection of the product after the provisional application expiredAs such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the terms stated in its letter dated March 30, 2012. 5. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its neglect to receive Client's approval of the final product sample. As such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the terms of the PDRA. 6. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its fraudulent patent pending label affixed to the product sampleAs such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to conduct business in a honest and forthright manner. 7. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its failure to communicate effectively with Client. As such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to fulfill the obligation of the both Agreements with Client. Davison's response fails to address Accusation of the Complaint regarding its deceptive and misleading past historyAs such, it is difficult for me to ascertain whether Davison fully understands the nature of its obligation to conduct business in a honest and forthright manner.CONCLUSIONDavison has chosen the "path of least resistance" in its response to the ComplaintIt has chosen the vague and ambiguous approach to avoid responding specifically to each accusationIt has included four attachments to support its response to the ComplaintNone of which support the accusations outlined in the Complaint.Attachment appears to be a copy of the Design Product signature pageUnfortunately, the page is a very poor copy and it fails to include the contents of the documentI normally do not sign blank pagesWhile the signature appears to be mine, it easily could have been from another document. It is difficult to affirm, based on its appearance.Attachment is my approval of the Product Rendering PresentationIt is merely the process Davison uses to fulfill each stage of the Product Idea not the Product PrototypeIt has nothing to do with product aesthetics but product process. Attachment is my approval of the product prototype shipping processIt is not my approval of the aesthetics of the product prototype but of the product prototype shipping process.Attachment is outlines my opinion of the Executive BriefingAs you can see from the marked box under production drawings, I was dissatisfied with the drawingsThis problem was never corrected even after bringing it to the attention of DavisonAs a result of ignoring my disapproval of the drawings, the defects were transferred to the prototype.Attachment is my approval for Davison to present a License Agreement to potential clientsThis document has nothing to do with the construction or creation of the product idea.Based on the foregoing information, I submit that Davison's response fails to address the accusations in the Complaint. Davison's response is nothing but a ruse to thwart the real issue -- which is fraudTherefore, Davison's business license should be revoked and Davison should not be allowed to practice business in the City of PittsburghDavison also should be required to reimburse me in the amount of $9,565, the total amount I paid them to create a prototype for a Stay Fresh Lock.Respectfully submitted,*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 08/30/WhileDavison understands the importance of communication and customer satisfaction, Mr***’scomplaint is founded on
misstatements and assumptions on his behalfDavison endeavorsto maintain an open channel of communication, disclosing the services and fees upfront andsecuring the clients’ approval and authorization throughout the processThe disclosures andcontracts are simply written with no “fine print” provisionsIt is simply not possible to be moreupfront about the fees, services and risksUnfortunately, despite best efforts, clients sometimesdisregard the disclosures and assume their product is a guaranteed “ticket” to financial success.Briefly stated, Mr*** contacted Davison in January 2014, not or as statedin the complaintHe entered into two contracts for services; the Pre-Development andRepresentation Agreement (PD), and the New Product Sample Agreement (NPSA)Prior tomaking any payment to Davison, he was provided with, and acknowledged receiving, twodisclosures detailing the various services, fees and historical licensing dataA copy of the datarecord confirming his receipt is attached, note the actual submitted idea has been redacted forconfidentialityThe disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s websiteThe PDagreement was entered on 02/05/14, and completed on 03/10/This service provided Mr.*** with a compilation of US patent documents and information on products similar to hissubmitted ideaHe then entered the NPSA on 05/09/for the design and construction of aproduct sample, packaging, and presentation materialHe selected a payment option and made anominal partial payment (less than 2% of the selected fee)Services under the NPSA are not dueto be completed until payment of the hill fee has been receivedOn 09/14/2015, Mr***expressly requested his project be placed on hold, until he contacted Davison to proceedPrior tothe current complaint, there has been no contact from Mr***.As the chronology indicates, Mr*** chose to place a hold on his projectNow, afterviewing a YouTube video of a comparable product, he feels he lost his “ticket”This position issimply not realisticIt assumes that absolutely no one, other than himself; has thought of theconcept of his product idea, and further that his product idea would be successful if he hadpursued itDavison goes to great lengths to inform its client of the risks of new productdevelopmentThe purpose of the PD service is to provide the client with some level ofunderstanding of patents and products that have already been developed that are similar to theirideaIt is not uncommon for multiple people to conceive of the same or similar ideasMr.*** was provided this information before entering the NPSAFurther, concepts are notproducts; a single concept may yield a variety of different productsMr*** concedes thatthe YouTube product was not exactly the same as his submitted ideaFinally, even if Mr***had pursued his idea through to its presentation, there is no guarantee of a licensed, much lessfinancial gainDavison goes to great lengths to communicate this to its clientsMr*** wasrepeatedly 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 whohave 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 aLicense Agreement, or find a Licensee willing to compensate Client for his or her product and/or designClientacknowledges that Davison has not made any representations concerning the potential of Clients Product to bemarketed, licensed, patented or to make a profit for ClientDavison has not evaluated the Product;”New Product Sample Agreement:“Client acknowledges that Davison has made no representations concerning the likelihood that the Client will receiveany 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 thatDavison has not disclosed it to anyoneThus, there is no way of knowing at this time if the targeted corporation willlicense, buy or pay royalties for the Idea once it has been developedClient acknowledges that Davison has made norepresentations concerning the likelihood of licensing, marketing, royalty payments or profitability.”Davison is willing to proceed under the terms of the NPSA, provided Mr*** makesfull payment of the feeIf he chooses to terminate the agreement, that is his prerogative.However, the contract does not provide for a refund of payments for cancellations that occurbeyond the stated period.If Mr*** chooses to terminate the contract, despite having no contractual obligationto process a refund, Davison has no interest in retaining fees for services that will not beperformedDavison will agree to waive its claim for the unpaid balance and refund 80% of themonies paid toward the NPSAThere is no basis to refund any monies on the PD Agreement asthese services have been performedIf Mr*** desires to accept this offer, he need simplycontact our legal department and the paperwork will be forwarded to his attention.SincerelyDavid *D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

Dear Mr***This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr*** regardingthe above referenced complaintWithout reiterating the details of the initial response, hiscomments will be addressed.Initially, the date of contact with Mr*** should be clarifiedAs stated in the priorresponse, Mr*** submitted his idea for a new product and acknowledged having receivedand read the two disclosure forms in November At that time, Davison made multipleattempts to reach Mr*** to discuss his idea submissionThose attempts were unsuccessful.Subsequently, in January 2015, Davison again reached out to Mr*** to discuss his ideasubmissionAs he indicates, discussions took place and the services were engagedSecondly,Mr***’s comments confirm his approval of the development process at the time the serviceswere being performedHis comments clarify that it is only now, in retrospect, that he feels theservices were not sufficient.The fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does notinvalidate the services that were providedDavison will honor its prior offer of two additionalpresentations at no cost to Mr***If he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contact theLicensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincerely,David ** D***

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

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Ms*** *** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 08/05/2017. At the outset, please note that when she contacted Davison in 2005, Ms*** was identified as *** ***. Davison has had
no contact with her since April 2007, more than ten (10) years ago. A review of her file indicates that the services which were provided, were provided to her documented satisfaction. The simple fact is that she has not fulfilled her obligation of payment. Davison remains willing to complete services upon receipt of the final payment of the contract fee. There is no basis for a refund In October 2005, Ms*** (***) entered into a contract 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 bee paid, as such, no services under the contract are yet due. Despite not being contractually obligated, Davison does begin the design process when a client has paid 60% of the agreed fee. Davison prepared a design for her product sample and submitted the design for her review and approval. On or about 04/13/2006, she approved the design and completed a questionnaire about the design in which she provided positive feedback. Enclosed please find a copy of her signed approval and completed questionnaire. Note the actual design has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. Unfortunately, she has not made any additional payment toward the fee. Davison continued to reach out to her through April 2007, when the last attempt to reach her failed. As stated, Ms*** (***) has not made full payment of the contract fee. The last contact, prior to the current complaint, was more than ten (10) year ago. Davison remains willing and able to complete all services, upon receipt of the remaining balance of the contract fee. There is no basis to support her claim for a refundSimilarly, 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 payment of the outstanding fee balance. Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr*** regardingthe above referenced complaintAt the outset, please note that on September 20th therepresentative from Davison had a lengthy (minute) discussion with Mr*** about hisproject and any concerns of hisConstruction of his product sample and creation o f thepresentation material has been completed and the authorization to proceed with the presentationhas been forwarded to Mr***.As previously stated, Davison understands the importance o f customer service andcommunicationEvety client is important, and Davison tries to address any concernsIn hiscomments, Mr*** misinterprets the reference o f March 01, in Davison’s initialresponseDavison acknowledges that it received notice o f his concerns in April, a fact the priorresponse did not disputeThe March 01, date is the date Mr*** provided hisauthorization to proceed with the construction phase o f his project; as evidenced by his email o fthat dateAlso, Mr*** raises a concern over the responsiveness o f Davison to his calls.Typically, calls are scheduled with clients to avoid the frustrations that “phone tag” can create.When a client makes an unscheduled call into Davison, to the extent possible, it is the companypolicy to have that call returned on the same business day or at the latest the next business day.Following the resolution of matters in his initial complaint, Mr*** called on June 9th andhis call was returned that same dayHe called on July 8th (a Friday) and the call was returned onJuly 12thAs stated above, the most recent communication was on September 20th.Davison has discussed the status of Mr***’s project with him and is continuing towork with him in the development o f his product ideaDavison will continue its efforts tominimize any communication issues with Mr***, as well as with all of its other clients. David *D***Associate Counsel

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 May 11, Re: *** *** Your ID#: *** Dear Ms***; This letter is in response to the third set of additional comments submitted by Ms*** regarding the above referenced complaint. As repeatedly addressed in the prior responses, Davison performed its services at Ms***’s direction, with her approval, and to her documented satisfaction. The product sample that was created was precisely the product concept that she had submittedWithout a lengthy reiteration of matters covered in the prior responses, her comments will be addressed. In what is now her fourth round of complaint, Ms***’s position has degraded to the fabrication of events to support her claim. In her latest comments, she alleges that the questionnaire indicating her satisfaction with the Integrated Product Rendering was not completed by her, but by Davison. The audacity required to level such a defamatory claim is almost incomprehensible. If there were any truth to such an allegation, certainly she would not have waited until her fourth round of complaint to raise it. The truth of the matter is that she completed the questionnaire and had it faxed to Davison on two occasionsThe first fax was sent on 10/31/2016; however that transmission did not include the signed virtual formOn 11/18/2016, she again faxed the questionnaire and also included the signed virtual form. On both occasions the faxes were sent from the UPS Store in *** ** where Ms*** resides. Attached, please find copies of both faxed questionnairesHighlighted on each form is the time and date stamp from the UPS Store from which she sent the fax. Also attached please find a copy of the webpage of the UPS Store in *** ** indicating its fax number Davison has gone beyond its contractual obligations in a good faith effort to address Ms***’s concerns. In contrast, Ms*** has not only shown a lack of good faith, but has now engaged in defamation. There is no basis to warrant a refund. Regardless of her conduct, Davison remains willing to complete any remaining services with the original product design, which was approved by Ms***. Also, Davison remains willing to consider reasonable modifications to the designHowever, such an agreement does not imply a wholesale re-design for a much more complex device Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

PS It's not the moneyIt's the principleMY ARGUMENT IS THAT WHAT THEY SENT ME IS NOT A RESEARCH REPORTA research report includes a graphic drawing of the product, plus similar ideas to my productIt lists the inventors of the products as wellI found this out when I contacted another company who sent me valid research report including all this materialIf they did this to me, then then they've probably done it to countless othersI've made my pointThe money's not importantI only asked for a refund when MrD'*** kept emailing trying to get me to invest further monies in the productI had already found out that several inventors were already ahead of me with the ideaI found this out from another reputable companyI leave it in your hands

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania
Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 January 05, 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 12/30/2017. Her contention that Davison breached its obligations is incorrect and her characterization of the company is inflammatory. As will be detailed, all services were provided with her express written approval and authorization. Further, the services met with her documented satisfaction. While it is unfortunate that her product idea was not licensed, that does not negate the services provided, nor does it provide a basis for a refund. The reality is that the product development process provides no guarantees of financial gain. The contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regardUnfortunately, 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*** submitted three ideas to Davison through its website on 09/01/2015. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is a listing of all services offered by Davison and their related fee, as well as the historical track record for securing a license. She acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that she both received and read these disclosuresEnclosed is a copy of the data record confirming her acknowledgement on 09/01/at 08:37:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes Ms*** contracted for services for only one of the three submitted ideas. Specifically, she 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 three separate questionnaires, one about the research portfolio prepared under the pre-development agreement, a second about the design of her product sample, and a third about the Executive Briefing, in which she provided positive feedback. Copies of the questionnaires are enclosed. The product idea was presented to the designated company who chose not to license the product idea. An offer of services for presentation to additional companies was made; Ms*** declined. At this point, all contracted services had been completed and she selected, in writing, a “reactive” status, wherein no presentations would actively be pursued and no continued updates would be provided A copy of her selection of this status is enclosed In her complaint, Ms., *** makes several misstatements and mischaracterizations. First, she implies Davison offered, or that she contracted for, patent services. This is not correct. Davison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services or other legal services. To the extent she believes these services were offered, she is mistaken. Secondly, she claims “surprise” at the fee for the development services. As stated above, she was provided with, and acknowledged having received and read, the disclosures that detail the various services and fees. Davison can not be more upfront about the fees for its services than to provide the information to a potential client before they enter any service contract. Next, she claims no physical sample was created. That is falseIn reliance upon her approval of the design, the physical product sample was constructed. The Executive Briefing, which was provided to her and about which she gave positive feedback, included a photograph of the physical sample. Also, the contract explicitly states that Davison is to retain possession of the product sample, unless requested in writing by the Client. This is so the product sample may be readily available if a corporation were to express interest. Finally, she implies that she was told her product idea would provide “a lifetime of royalty payments”. This is simply false. 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

This letter is in continued follow up to the above referenced complaintPlease beadvised that Davison has resolved all outstanding issues with Mr***He hasinformed Davison that he has spoken with your office and provided this informationdirectly.In light of the resolution, it is requested that his file be closed a resolved.SincerelyDavid ** D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc