Paint Solutions

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,
*** ***

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

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Mr***regarding the above referenced complaintHis additional comments allege that the two productsamples developed with his express written authorization, and to his documented satisfaction,were not actually developed by Davison but are merely repackaged productsThis contention issimply false.When developing a product sample to address a problem identified by a client, it notuncommon for the solution to be a modification of an existing productThe use of OriginalEquipment Manufacturer (OEM) parts is an accepted practiceThe contracts explicitly state thatOEM parts may be used for a portion or all of the parts utilized in the sampleSimply stated, it isnot reasonable to require every component of a product sample to be uniquely designedTakento its extreme, such a view would require the design of a simple screw rather than utilizing anexisting screwMr***’s product samples do incorporate such OEM componentsHoweverit is a mischaracterization to state the use of OEM parts means the product sample is then simplya re-packaged existing product.As stated in the prior response, Mr***’s project has been developed over the courseof more than five yearsDavison is not, and can not, be aware of every idea for a new productthat anyone, anywhere might have or developIt is not uncommon for multiple individuals toconceive of the same or similar idea independentlyDavison developed both designs andsubsequent product samples with Mr***’s express written approval and authorizationThesecond design was developed to incorporate specific features as directed by Mr***Davisonhas gone above and beyond its contractual obligations to address his concernsWhile it isunfortunate that the targeted corporation did not license his idea, that does not provide a basis fora refundSimilarly, the fact that products have been developed by others which are similar to hisidea does not provide a basis for a refund to Mr***Davison remains willing to work withMr***If he chooses to continue to pursue his project he may contact the Office of thePresident at his convenience.SincereDavid ** D***Associate Counsel

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
In Ms***'s fourth paragraph she states that, I suggested that I was unaware of additional fees. That is not at all what I suggested. I stated that the additional fee was excessive to produce the product and present it to a company. I don't dispute the fact that the Davison Company doesn't dot all the "I's" and crosses all the "T's" when it comes to their documents but when you are asking an individual to sign an agreement with a large price tag attached to it, you should be available to answer questions regarding the agreement. MrL*** did not respond to my phone calls, asking for clarification on several points in the agreement. As Ms*** states in her first paragraph "Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum." Well my concern was not addressed at all because my phone calls were not returned and therefore I feel that the Davison Company dropped the ball when it came to our agreement. I am still seeking a refund of the $695.00.Regards, *** *** Regards,
*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** ***against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about 08/10/Customerconcerns upset everyone and Davison’s staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimum
Davison makes a full disclosure of its services andfees, the contracts are simply written with no “fine print” provisions, and the staff maintains anopen channel of communication throughout the processUnfortunately, Mr***’s complaintis replete with inaccuraciesWhile each individual inaccurate statement may seem minor inisolation, the repeated nature of the inaccuracies demonstrates either an intentional effort tobolster his position or a simple disregard for the factsRegardless, Davison has provided, andcontinues to provide, its services per the terms of the contractThere is no basis for a refund forservices rendered.Mr*** contacted Davison already having a product developedHe entered into aRepresentation Agreement on 01/31/2015, under which Davison is obligated to present hisproduct to up to forty-five (45) companies in an attempt to secure a license agreementDavisonhas provided to Mr*** a listing of the companies that it has contacted about his product andhas provided to him a true and correct copy of the correspondence sent to said companiesTodate, no company has expressed an interest in licensing his productWhile this is unfortunate, itdoes not provide a basis for a refund.In his complaint, Mr*** makes the following inaccurate statements;He states he paid Davison $6,This is false; his paid $5,He states he hired Davison to “sell my product”This is falseDavison does notmanufacture products or sell product to the general publicDavison presents aclient’s product idea to a designated company in an effort to secure a licenseagreementIt is the subsequent licensee that may manufacture and sell theproductThe contract Mr*** entered specifically states; “WHEREAS, theInventor desires to retain Davison to submit the Invention for possible licensing,sale or distribution by others ...“He states that Davison agreed to take his product “door to door to sell it...” Iftaken literally, this is false; the “knocking on doors” approach is simply notrealistic in the 21st centuryElectronic communication is a fundamental aspect oftoday’s business worldIf taken euphemistically, then yes, Davison hascontacted each company individually and specifically about Mr***’sproduct, though as stated above, not to “sell the product” but to seek a licenseagreementMr*** alleges that the contracted services were “not sending letters Thisis falseThe contract clearly sets forth what the services were to include;“IDEA PRESENTATION SERIVCESDavison’s idea presentation services will include some or all of thefollowing as describedDavison will attempt to present the Invention inas many different forums as possible, but not all products handled byDavison receive presentation in all of the below listed manners;aConduct verbal presentation (phone);bConduct electronic presentation (email);cConduct face-to-face presentation at Davison’s facility or othercorporation’s facility;dShow Invention at trade shows (when opportunity presents);eMaintain the Invention virtual rendering and other materials topresent to future potential licensees not currently registered toreview product ideas.”Mr*** claims to have spoken to the CEO of DavisonThis is false; in fact,Mr*** has a discussion with the President of the company during which thedetails of his project and Davison’s performance of the services, per the contract,were discussed.As stated, Davison has performed, and continues to perform, its services per the terms ofthe contractMr***’s complaint is based on mischaracterizations of the nature and scope ofthe contracted servicesThere is no basis to warr*** a refund for services rendered.David *D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Turning ideas into products

Ms*** *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday
Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 March 13, 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 02/28/2018. 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 projectAs will be detailed below, Mr*** 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 complaintIt bears noting that all services were completed by December 2013, more than five years ago Mr*** contacted Davison by submitting an idea through its website on 07/20/2013. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for a client to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable and savable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the client enters any service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statement that “It is Davison’s 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 Mr*** and the data record confirming his acknowledgement on 07/20/at 03:22:ESTNote the submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes. The disclosures are also freely available on Davison’s website. Mr*** entered into the initial pre-development contract for the performance of research related to his submitted idea. The services under the pre-development contract were completed. The research material, comprising U.Spatent documents and information on similar products was delivered to Mr*** by the USPS on 12/18/2013. Following completion of the initial services, and consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures provided to him, on 01/09/Davison offered additional services for the further development of his project. He declined these additional services, which is his prerogative. In his complaint, Mr*** alleges the initial service was for “patenting my invention”. This is falseDavison is not a law firm and does not provide patent services or other legal services. Such services are not listed in the disclosures, nor are they contained in the contract terms. To the contrary, the various disclosures and contracts provide; Disclosures: No legal service, whether it is patent filing or any other legal service, is listed on the disclosures detailing the various services offered by Davison Pre-development Agreement: “IIB…Davison is not responsible for applying for or obtaining any intellectual property protections on the Product or Design, including but not limited to patents, trademarks and trade names.” Next, Mr*** states he was not informed of the cost of the development services for his project. This is false. To the contrary, the various disclosures and contracts provide; Disclosures: The various services, and related fees, are detailed in the disclosure. The development services, and their fees, are listed under the heading “Types of Second Phase Agreements”. Pre-Development Agreement: Section 1.A.: “…if Client contracts with Davison for design and product sample preparation services, which are not covered by this Agreement… …Davison is exclusively responsible for the costs associated with presenting the Product to a Licensee, which costs do not include designing, building or refurbishing a product sample.” and Section II.B“Product Samples; 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 at all.” There is no factual basis to support MrShabani’s complaint. As stated above, he was fully informed of all the services and fees. He 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. There is no basis for a refund for services rendered Sincerely, David *D*** Associate Counsel Davison Design and Development, Inc Enclosures

Honestly there response is BS!!!!! Where is the recording with the intake Russueell H*** did!!! where he led me to believe my idea was amazing!!! His words! Where he also suggested other things, people and options I can do with my idea not Davisions concept!!!! This is just a total taking advantage of me and me trusting themthey can use savy words and roll up their slevves but this is wrong!!! I want a refund as this is not right to take advantage of me in this wayThe last conversation I had the VP was so rude and condacending on the phonelike this is what they do and offer fake promisesMy initial conversation was what led me to believe that my idea was a go where is that recording why is no one speaking of Russel H*** when I spoke to the VP and told him all of this he responded by saying he is not sure why Russel said that!!!!!! How can someone cancel a contract that starts only after payment is made I mean come on how can I cancel something I don't have infront of me took months to present any concept and even then they promised to change it send it back for my vision and nothing came aboutI looked into this company and they have tons of similar cases like mines the VP was condescending and mean threatening voice that my idea sucked not his words but pretty muchWhy can't this company just do the right thing and give me back my money instead of dragging this outcan you the Revdex.com get copies or request of initial conversation..Please!!!!! For me to contact a lawyer will be too much out of pocket expense And this is wrong!!!!!!!!!

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr*** against Davison Design and Development, Inc(Davison) on or about05/02/Please be advised that a representative from Davison has contacted Mr.*** and fully discussed his concernsMr*** has
agreed to continue withDavison in the development of his projectI also spoke with Mr*** today toconfirm, and he has agreed to notify the Revdex.com of the same.In light of the agreement to proceed, I ask that his complaint be withdrawnIn thealternative, a full response to his complaint is enclosed

This letter is in response to the supplemental comments submitted by Mr*** on orabout 07/16/In his comments, Mr*** raises two areas related to his project; thepresentation of his idea to the targeted corporation and the design of his product sampleAs willbe detailed below, his position on both issues is not supported by the documented evidenceAsstated in the initial reply, Davison has performed its services with Mr***’s approval andauthorization, and to his documented satisfactionWhile it is unfortunate his product idea wasnot licensed, that fact does not provide grounds for a refund.Presentation of his product idea:Mr*** alleges that he was informed the targeted corporation had expressed interestin his product idea, before he contracted to have the product sample designed and constructed.He offers no support for this contentionThe documented evidence counters this allegationWhenMr*** submitted his idea, he did so by entering a Confidentially AgreementUnder theexpress terms of the Agreement; “Davison will not use, disclose, license or sell this idea with outmy [Mr***] express written permission.” Davison takes the obligation of confidentialityseriously, and abides by the terms of the AgreementWhile the target corporation was identifiedin September 2012, Mr*** did not provide authorization to make a presentation untilMarch 2013, i.eafter the product sample had been designed, approved, constructed and thepresentation material createdFurther, in September 2012, the letter informing Mr*** ofthe identity of the target corporation explicitly states that Davison has not disclosed anyinformation about his product idea to the corporation.Design of the Product Sample:Mr*** acknowledges having approved the design of the product sample, but allegeshe was pressured into doing soWhile it is not possible to document his mindset when heapproved the design, his contention that it was not a sincere approval is contradicted by hissubsequent actionsSpecifically; after approving the design, he completed a questionnaireproviding positive feedback; after the product sample was constructed, he authorized thepresentation to the targeted corporation; and in connection with the presentation material, hecompleted a second questionnaire, again providing positive feedbackThe subsequentauthorization and completed questionnaires simply do not corroborate his contention that thedesign did not meet with his approval In a final attempt to find support for his complaint, Mr*** raises the FTC case.That case has no bearing on Mr***’s projectThe FTC case was from 1997, nearlyeighteen (18) years ago and fifteen (15) years before Mr*** contacted DavisonWhenMr*** contacted Davison, the company was, and has continued to be, in completecompliance with all requirements of the Court and the FTCAs noted in the initial reply, whenMr*** first contacted Davison, he was provided with, and signed, the AffirmativeDisclosure required by the Court as part of the FTC caseFurther, information concerning thecase is readily available to the publicMr***’s reference to the case establishes that fact.As such, that case does not provide any valid basis to support his complaint.Davison has performed its services with Mr***’s approval, authorization and tohis documented satisfactionThere is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered.However, Davison will honor its offer of two additional presentations at no cost to Mr***as was presented in the initial responseIf he chooses to accept this offer, he need only contactour Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorize thepresentations.Sincerely 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 02/2016.Davison would like to thank Mr*** for his complaint as it exemplifies the irrationalexpectations of many individuals in the
product development industryThese irrationalexpectations are the fodder that underlies many complaints voiced within the industry.Countless numbers of individuals have an idea for a new product; have a passion for theirvision for the product; and a belief that “everyone” surely shares their viewsThe simpletruth is; innovation and new product development is not right for everyoneThe newproduct development process is a high risk ventureIt is a time consuming process andrequires adaptations to an initial concept that adjust for costs, technical constraints, andmany other factorsThere is no guarantee that a particular product idea will be licensed,much less a guarantee of a financial gain.Davison goes to great lengths to disclose the risks to all individuals who maysubmit an idea for a new productIn addition to disclosing all of its services and feesupfront, the historical success rates of securing a license and of realizing a financial gainare providedThe contracts for services repeatedly provide disclosures that there is noguarantee that a product will be licensed, or that a client will realize a financial gain.Unfortunately, the reality for most individuals is that their product does not get licensed.When faced with an outcome not meeting their unrealistic expectations, too many clientsforget that they knowingly undertook a risk after being filly informed of the risk byDavisonInstead, they lash out, relying on a mistaken belief that their product ideas werespecial and should have prevailed where others did not.In Mr***’s case, he beat the odds! After going through Davison’s process ofdesigning and constructing a product sample, creating packaging and presentationmaterial, and making a presentation to a corporation, his product was licensedNot onlythat, his product made it to store shelves and is currently selling! Rather than beinghappy with the reality of having a product selling in stores, he posts this complaintcomplaining that the amount of royalties is not sufficient.Further, he threatens legal action, demands an audit, and states a desire toterminate the contractSetting aside the illogical belief that demanding such actionthrough a complaint site has any legal effect; such demands highlight the reality that hesimply wants someone else to do the work, and will complain if it does not meet hisexpectationsThe license agreement which he entered provides him with the authority toaudit the corporate licenseeIf he wants an audit, he may exercise his contract rights andincur the time and expenseSimilarly, his desire to “get out of the contract” highlightshis naïve viewThe contract is a legally binding agreementThe corporate licensee hasexpended time, money, and resources in reliance upon the terms of the contractThecontract provides specific steps necessary to terminate the agreementIf he wants toterminate the license, then he may review the contract and exercise the rights detailedtherein.Despite its vehement disagreement with the grounds for his complaint, Davisonwill continue to abide by all of its obligations to Mr*** as a client.Sincerely, David ** D***Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc

MsJennifer *** Revdex.com of Western Pennsylvania Holiday Drive, Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15220 December 05, Re: *** *** Your ID#: *** Dear Ms*** This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Ms*** *** regarding the above referenced complaint. Prompt response to a customer is a necessary aspect of good business practice. Unfortunately, the reality is that, on occasion, an individual, and businesses in general, can fall short of perfect adherence to good business practices. Davison extends its apology for any failure to promptly respond to Ms*** regarding the second contract for services. However, that does not provide a valid basis for a refund for services rendered under the first contract. As stated in the initial response, Ms*** entered the initial pre-development contract and those services were performed. There is no dispute as to that fact. She was offered a second contract for further development services. She did not enter this second contract, nor did she make any payment on the second contract. There is no dispute as to those facts. In the prior response it was documented that Ms*** was provided with a disclosure about the series of contracts and their related fees before entering any contract. She has clarified in the supplemental comments that she was aware of the fee for the second contract, but thought it excessive. If she was aware of the fee, thought it was excessive and was informed that it was part of a series of contracts, it begs the question of why proceed with the process. It is not reasonable to enter the first contract, receive the benefits of that contract, and then expect a refund because she declined the services in the second contract. There is no factual basis to support Ms***’s demand for a refund. As stated above, she was fully informed of all the services and fees 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

In reference to case #***, and response to Davison letter to my complaint:The communication between Davison and myself have not been kept to a minimum, I had to call them or times a day to try to get them to answer me several times they only answered when I told them I would get hold of the Revdex.com and FTCThats when the finally called me.First of all on 1-14-2016, I got a e-mail from Ted Morse Srof a picture of my design and a questionaire I called Ted back and told him I was not completely happy with the picture of the design,and had questions about how the product was going to work, he told me he could not answer my questions, the design team would work on it some more and he would have an answer for me by end of April.I dont believe them because of all the lies he told me for the last monthsHe did tell me that they would get the design patented, and marketed and ready for people to have under their Christmas treeThiswas told to me before I sent them the rest of the money, I have not recieved anything for my $12,but a picture of something that I am not completely satisfied with and I noted it on the questionaire.It is unfortunate that our country lets big companies like Davison to hire lawyers to come up with these contracts that the common people do not understand and that makes it legal to scam people like me and get away with it time and time again that are on fixed incomes and steal their savingsWhat I am telling you is the honest to gods truth, I wish I would have communicated by e-mail instead of by phonethen I would have the proof of what Ted Morse said and did,Why would I have taken $12,out of my retirement if he did not tell me all of what I have said.Thank You,*** ***

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. Omar[redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about07/17/2016. Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard totroubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Having...

reviewed hisfile, it appears the issue is an unfortunate breakdown of communication.Please note that Mr. [redacted] has been refunded his payment in full and his projectfile has been closed. The refund was processed today, 07/25/2016; a copy o f the refundreceipt is attached hereto. Outside of processing the refund, Davison has no control of theposting of the credit to his account. Davison extends its apologies for any inconveniencethe delay in processing this refund may have caused Mr. [redacted].In light of the refund, I kindly ask that his complaint be closed as “resolved”.

There were some facts that were true in the business's response; however on May 11th I have a missed call from Greg M[redacted] at 3:05pm. On May 12th I returned Greg's call at 12:40pm and the call lasted between 10-11 minutes during my lunch hour. In that conversation we discussed a few different things. We discussed going further with the project and I told him that I read over the royalty information along with the 3 payment options he made available for me knowing my financial situation and how it would be easier on me. I also stated I do not have that kind of money and went on to say I already live pay to pay as you can see how my payments were made listed in the file above. I made more frequent payments after I received my income tax. I further said I would have to take out a small loan from the bank. Greg stated "when you go to a bank and ask for a loan do not tell them what it is really for because they will not give you a loan your best bet would be to ask for a personal loan or something to that affect".  During this conversation I asked about the patent. Yes I do know they do not mail paperwork from their office for a patent. What I initially said in my complaint " I was told my idea would be sent to the U.S. Patent Office and they would send me paperwork for a provisional patent". I asked specifically do I have to pay additional money for the patent? He said "NO it has already been covered with the $795.00 you paid" I said okay cool. That pretty much wrapped up our conversation that day. 
Regards,
[redacted]

In response to Mr. D[redacted]’s response, I would like to start by saying the first paragraph of his response has been used on a number of complaints your office has already received.  It is the same verbiage Davidson Design and Development Inc.  uses each time.  In the communication process that was on a weekly to bi-weekly basses, I was given the impression that Davidson Design and Development Inc. would make me money and have my product in 1000s of stores.  At no time was I advised in this process that they would not be able to do so.  This opening paragraph is a lie.I will only deal in facts in this reply to not offend the Associate Council and Mr. D[redacted].Fact 1, I paid $695.00 for a computer search and print out of my patent that already existed.  This could not have taken more than 10 minutes. This took them over 5 months to complete.Fact 2, I paid another $5740.00 and a $500.00 patented product, for two inferior pictures that any child could have done.  This took Davidson Design and Development Inc. over 18 months to produce.Now that the facts are established I will respond to the lame response given by Mr. D[redacted].    First of all, if Davidson Design and Development Inc. have done anything else, they have not shared it with me and I am the one that paid them for a service.  Another fact is I have repeatedly requested to be shown what they were doing and all I got was “I will send an email up the chain”.       Mr. D[redacted] starts out by stating that I submitted an ideal to them.  I NEVER SUBMITTED an ideal to them. This is another lie.  I spent numerus phone conversations with what has been identified to me as their Vice President of New Products, Chad M[redacted].  In these conversations I explained in great detail that the product was NOT new, it was a patented, marketed and working patented product.  This started in the summer of 2014.  Mr. M[redacted] assured me that Davidson Design and Development Inc. would be able to find a company to and I quote “produce and market 1000s of my product a month”.  In these conversations he never advised me that there was a remote chance I would be wasting my money.  I agreed to start the process in the fall of 2014 and paid Davidson Design and Development Inc. $695.00 to do what Mr. D[redacted] refers to as Pre Development phase, where they are to research patents and ideals.  This was addressed with Mr. M[redacted] and he advised me repeatedly that it was just a formality and this was part of the process.  For the record, this process took them over 5 months to complete.  As for signing off on this, yes I did but again it was advised to me that if I did not they could not go forward, even though Davidson Design and Development Inc. could not have spent more than a half hour to complete this process.  I signing this did not mean I agreed they had done anything more than print out my patent and if they did SHOW ME.     I did question Mr. M[redacted] about the two paragraphs in the agreement Mr. D[redacted] has in his response and again I was told, “Just imagine your product in 1000s of stores across the country”.  For the record, during the first 9 months I had been dealing with Davidson Design and Development Inc., Mr. M[redacted] had contacted me at a minimum of once a week to tell me how his team was working on my product and it was going to be in 1000s of stores.  I was already into this for $695.00 when the second agreement was presented to me and been told on a weekly basis how much money I would be making.  I than paid an additional $5945.00 to continue.  It took Davidson Design and Development Inc.  another 8 months to come up with the first drawing presented to me.  This drawing did not resemble my product and did have PATANT PENDING on it.  To this day I still have not had a satisfactory response on why Davidson Design and Development Inc. was going to try and patent a product already patented, unless they had intentions of steeling my patent.  I asked Mr. M[redacted] to explain why this was on the picture and what they had done besides this drawing for me.  To this day I have no explanation or reasonable response to either request.  Mr. D[redacted] stated in has response that it is my prerogative not to have patent pending on the drawing.  This still does not address the FACT that it was ever on an existing patented product.  They had over 9 months to get it r[redacted] and this is the best he could come up with.  The only explanation then could be that Davidson Design and Development Inc. was in fact intending to steel my patent.  In this first drawing, the product on the drawing did not resemble my patented product and was of inferior quality.  I still have what they sent me.    The first drawing was rejected in Dec. of 2015 and six months later a second drawing was sent.  In this drawing, they attempted to use a picture I sent them in the summer of 2014, of an outdated model of my product and simply copied and pasted it on the drawing.  This is proof that Davidson Design and Development Inc. did not do any work on my project as I was told hundreds of times by Mr. M[redacted] that he had a team working on my project.  For the record in the 18 months I was denied any communication with the team working on my project, therefore I am not sure they exist.  When I rejected this amateurish picture and demanded an explanation on what they had done for all the money I paid them, I was begged by Mr. M[redacted] to talk to the President.      At the time I was under the impression I was talking to someone in authority.  Mr. D[redacted] stated in his statement that I may not have been talking to anyone in authority but someone in the office of the president.  The individual I spoke to could not advise me why they had put patent pending on the first picture and threatened me when all I wanted was a simple time line to continue, or my money back.  Mr. D[redacted] indicated in his response that Davidson Design and Development Inc. dose not give any time lines.  I have been dealing with this company for over 2 years and my product was already prototyped, patented, marketed and in use.  I can just imagine how long it would take them to take a new ideal and get it to licensing.    As for Mr. D[redacted]’s response to me demanding “two pictures”.  This is a lie also.  I would like for him to produce the document where I demanded two pictures.  As far as Mr. D[redacted] stating that Davidson Design and Development Inc. is committed to my project.  They have had over 2 years to get it to licensing and have done nothing. My company will not do business with a company that is not above board, transparent, has tried to mislead me and steel my patent.    Another fact, I have a record of hundreds of phone calls from Davidson Design and Development Inc.   In 99% of the calls, they called me.  In all the phone calls I was reassured that they would make me money and have my product in 1000s of stores. Mr. D[redacted] stated also that I have ceased responding.   I have no desire to continually be told how great Davidson Design and Development Inc. is and how they will make me rich, when they have only stole my money to this point. For the record, I have not been contacted by Davidson Design and Development Inc. in over 4 months.    In summary of my response, I have been more then patent with Davidson Design and Development Inc.  They have not fulfilled the promises or agreement they started with in the summer of 2014 and for them to indicate they have, simply show me the proof.  It is easy to fall back on a few words, but the fact is Davidson Design and Development Inc. uses scamming techniques to rob hard working people of their money. They continually re-assure you that they will make you money while they do nothing and attempt to fall back on their technical wording in an agreement they force you to sign, being they have already taken hundreds of dollars from you, by this point.  I do want a full refund of $6545.00 and my product I delivered to them in Feb. of 2015 returned.     Samuel L. K[redacted]CEO [redacted]

This letter is in response to the additional comments submitted by Mr. [redacted] on or about07/16/2015. In the statement, Mr. [redacted] makes a series of allegation that are simply notsupported by the documented evidence. Each allegation will be addressed separately;1. Oral Agreements. Mr. [redacted] alleges throughout his statement the existenceof “promised statements” without providing any support. The contract that heentered is plainly written with no “fine print” provisions. Section III. B.explicitly states that the agreement is the “entire agreement” and can not bemodified in any “manner except as provided herein or by separate instrumentin writing signed by all parties.” Such a provision is necessary to combat thehe said/she said argument that he is attempting to put forth.2. Receipt of disclosures. Mr. [redacted] alleges he was not provided with the twodisclosures referenced in the initial response. In support he references thecontract portal that was created on 05/05/2015. While it is true the contractportal was created on that date, he ignores the fact that he made contact withDavison and submitted his idea on 04/22/2015. As stated in the initialresponse, it is simply not possible for a person to submit an idea withouthaving acknowledged the disclosures. Enclosed, please find a copy of thedata record documenting Mr. [redacted]’s acknowledgment on 04/22/2015 at02:03:08 from IP address 99-96-251 -77.lightspeed.tukrga.sbcglobal.net (notehis submitted idea has been redacted for confidentiality purposes).3. Misled on scope of services. Mr. [redacted] alleges he was misled as to the scopeof services provided by the Pre-Development agreement, asserting he was“promised” design work on his idea. The contract entered by Mr. [redacted], byits very title, is for nrc-development services. Design and developmentservices may be offered following completion of the pre-developmentservices. Section II. B. of the contract clearly states:“Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample and relevant information about theproduct in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’s sole expense.Davison, at its option, will offer to provide fhrther development services, under a separatecontract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentationmaterial for the targeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain suchmaterials elsewhere or not to obtain them.”4. Necessity of Pre-Development services. Mr. [redacted] questions why he wasrequested to provide information as to his idea if Davison was simply goingto do a review of existing patents and existing products. Obviously a clientneeds to provide details as to their idea. However, is not uncommon formultiple people to conceive of the same or similar products independently.Davison is not aware, and simply can not be aware, of every idea for a newproduct that any person, anywhere, may conceive. Because of this fact,Davison requires all of our clients to undergo the initial pre-developmentresearch so that some level of knowledge may be secured as to what is in theprior art.5. Performance of Services. Mr. [redacted] alleges the pre-development serviceswere not performed. His is mistaken. Specifically the agreement requiredDavison to provide; product related data, a patent review, a corporationreview, product planning session and a portfolio. The Portfolio, containingthe information of the product related data and patent review was provided toMr. [redacted] on or about 05/21/2015. His statement acknowledges his receiptof this information. The corporation review was completed and a targetcorporation identified. This information was provided to Mr. [redacted] by aseparate letter on 06/01/2015. The allegations of non-performance aredirected at the design and development services not engaged by Mr. [redacted].As stated, Mr. [redacted] was fully informed of all services and their related fees offered byDavison, BEFORE he entered into any contract. The services for which there existed a contracthave been performed. No additional contracts have been entered and no additional paymentshave been received. There is no basis to warrant a refund for services rendered.SincerelyDavid * D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.EnclosureTurning

This letter is in response to the second set of additional comments submitted by Mr.Bemot regarding the above referenced complaint. Without reiterating the details set forth in theprior two responses, his comments will be addressed.Initially, the offer of two presentations at no cost to Mr. [redacted] is in no manner anadmission that Davison failed to provide its services. Your office has been provided withdocumented evidence of Mr. [redacted]’s approval, authorization and satisfaction with the services.His continued complaint demonstrates a retrospective dissatisfaction with the fact that the productidea was not licensed, rather than dissatisfaction with the specific services. Secondly, Mr. [redacted]requests details regarding the offer of two additional presentations at no cost to him. Thesepresentations would be performed in the same manner as the initial presentation. The specifictargeted corporation would be selected by the Licensing Department. Mr. [redacted] would beprovided with their identity, as well as information about Davison’s past presentations to eachcorporation. With regard to the form of presentation, that depends largely upon the practices andpreferences of the particular targeted company. Typically, the initial presentation is visual,descriptive information provided to the company contact and the product sample is shipped uponrequest. The authorization to make the presentation (a copy of which was previously provided)explicitly states; “I authorize Davison to ship visual information prior to shipping product samplematerials.”As previously stated, if he chooses to accept the offer of the two presentations, he needonly contact the Licensing Department who will coordinate the necessary paperwork to authorizethe presentations.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 05/10/20 16.Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them socommunication errors are kept to a minimum....

From the time of an initial contact and throughoutthe development and presentation of the idea, Davison maintains an open channel ofcommunication, disclosing its services and fees upfront, providing contracts that are simplywritten, with no “fine print” provisions, and securing the client’s approval and authorization. Itis not possible to be more upfront with its clients about the services, fees and the development oftheir project.At the outset it should be noted that all contracted services for Mr. [redacted] have beencompleted by April 2015, to his documented satisfaction. In May 2015, he chose to not engageany additional services. Prior to the current complaint, the only communication from Mr.[redacted] in the past year has been an e-mail on 03/30/20 16. That email and his complaint restupon a misconception that he “payed for prototype and royalty deal”. Further, his allegations thathis ideas were stolen are unsubstantiated, false and defamatory. There is no basis for hiscomplaint.Mr. [redacted] initiated contact with Davison by submitting an idea through its websiteon 08/23/20 14. The electronic submission system utilized by Davison makes it impossible for aclient to submit an idea without having two separate disclosures displayed in a printable andsavable format. It is important to note that the disclosures are made BEFORE the Client entersany service contract or makes any payment to Davison. Among the disclosures is the statementthat “It is Davison’s normal practice to seek more than one contract in connection with asubmitted idea.” The disclosure then provides a listing of the various services and related fees.Enclosed, please find a copy of the disclosure detailing the services and related fees as it waspresented to Mr. [redacted]. He acknowledged, via an electronic signature, that he both receivedand read these disclosures.Following his acknowledgment of the disclosures, Mr. [redacted] entered the initial predevelopment contract which obligated Davison to compile research on U.S. Patents and products,on the market at that time, which were similar to his idea. This research was completed and thematerial provided to him in a Product Portfolio on 04/06/2015. He completed a questionnaire on04/12/20 15 noting his satisfaction with the service. A copy of his signed questionnaire isenclosed.The contract for the pre-development service contains the following provision;“Section II B. Product Samples; Approvals. Client is responsible for obtaining a product sample, packagingand relevant information about the product in a professional format for presentation to a Licensee, at Client’ssole expense. Davison, at its option, will offer to provide hirther development services, under a separatecontract for a separate fee, to assist in obtaining or creating the sample and presentation material for thetargeted Licensee. Client is aware that he or she is free to obtain such materials elsewhere or not to obtainthem.”Consistent with the terms of the Pre-Development Agreement and the disclosures provided to Mr.[redacted], Davison offered additional services for the further development of his project. Hedeclined these additional services, which is his prerogative. However, he voiced concerns overan alleged lack of disclosure of the additional services. Numerous attempts were made to addresshis concerns, including a call with the President of Davison. As stated, there has been no furthercontact from him, prior to the email of 03/30/2016 and the current complaint.Mr. [redacted]’s allegation that he paid for a prototype and a royalty deal is directlycontradicted by the disclosures and the contract terms. Even the title of the contract he entered“Pre-Development...” states that the services are prior to the development of the product idea.The allegation of theft of three of his ideas is baseless. Initially, he only submitted one concept toDavison, not three. Second, all idea submissions are made pursuant to a ConfidentialityAgreement. Davison adheres to this obligation of confidentiality for all submitted ideas,including Mr. [redacted]’s idea. That stated, Davison is neither aware of nor responsible for, anyand every new product idea that might be conceived of by anyone, anywhere. It is notuncommon for multiple persons to have the same or similar idea. That is the express purpose ofthe Pre-Development services to obtain some insight to existing similar products and patents.There is no factual basis to support Mr. [redacted]’s complaint. As stated above, he wasfully informed of the services and fees BEFORE he entered any contract. The services for whichhe contracted have been performed to his documented satisfaction. His decision to not pursue thefurther development of his product idea does not negate the initial service which was completed.There is no basis for a refund.SincerelyDavid M. D[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint filed by Mr. [redacted] against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about04/09/2015. At the outset, it should be highlighted that by Mr. [redacted]’s own admission,the events providing the basis of his complaint occurred in...

March 2001 over fourteen(14) years ago. As will be detailed below, the issues were resolved more than a decadeago. Davison has gone well beyond the scope of its contractual obligations and hasprovided services to Mr. [redacted] at no cost to him. The value of those services exceeds$6,000.00. There is no reasonable basis to justify his complaint or his request for arefund.Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshootthem so communication errors are kept to a minimum. From the time of an initial contactand throughout our process, we maintain an open channel of communication, disclosingour services and fees upfront and securing our clients’ approval and authorizationthroughout the process. Mr. [redacted], jointly with Ms. [redacted], contactedDavison about a new product idea in August 2000. The initial contracts, approvals andauthorizations were signed by Ms. [redacted], until 07/09/2008, when she instructedDavison to transfer the project to Mr. [redacted]. During the development process, theissue regarding the clients’ prototype and the product sample constructed by Davisonoccurred. The issue was fully discussed, including the fact that the prototype could notbe returned to the clients. The parties agreed to proceed with the development of theproduct sample and pursue the presentation of the product idea to corporations. Over thecourse of the next ten years, Davison made, with the clients’ authorizations, a total ofseventeen (17) presentations — at no additional cost to the client. Enclosed please findthree selected documents covering this timeframe; a Shipping Procedure Agreementdated 03/23/2004 signed by Ms. [redacted], the letter dated 07/12/2008 transferring theproject to Mr. [redacted] and a Shipping Procedure Agreement dated 09 02 2011 signed byMr. [redacted]. On or about 08 09/2013, Mr. [redacted] had a discussion with arepresentative from the licensing department. The result of that discussion was thedetermination to not actively pursue additional corporations.In light of his allegation that Davison has not returned his call, a representativewill reach out to Mr. [redacted]. However, as stated, there is no reasonable basis to supporthis complaint or to warrant a refund.SincerelyAssociate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.Enclosures

This letter is in response to the above referenced complaint, filed by Mr. [redacted],against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison) on or about 04/03/20 15. Customerconcerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communicationerrors are kept to a minimum....

From the time of an initial contact, to the presentation of a client’sproduct sample, we try to maintain an open channel of communication and secure our client’sapproval throughout the process. Mr. [redacted] has been a valued client since 2009. The productdevelopment process provides no guarantees of financial gain and often is pursued over a lengthyperiod of time. As a result, it is easy to lose track of the work and effort that has been providedalong the way, particularly in the unfortunate event that a license is not secured. Davison hasprovided its services with his express written approval and authorization, and to his documentedsatisfaction. A brief summary of events will aid in understanding the services that were provided.Mr. [redacted] contacted Davison in 2009, was provided with, and acknowledged that hereceived and read, two disclosures which outline our services and fees and the risks of the newproduct development process. Following receipt of these disclosures, he entered into a PreDevelopment Agreement for the completion of research related to his submitted idea. Thisresearch was completed and provided to him. Following the completion of this initial service, heentered into a New Product Sample Agreement for the design and construction of a physicalproduct sample, packaging and presentation material. Davison submitted a design of the productsample to Mr. [redacted] which he approved, in writing, and about which he completed aquestionnaire providing positive feedback. A copy of his signed approval and completedquestionnaire are enclosed; note the approved design has been obscured for confidentialitypurposes. In reliance upon his approval of the design, Davison constructed the product sample,packaging and created presentation materials. An Executive Briefing was created whichcontained an actual photo&ranh of the constructed product sample. After receipt of the ExecutiveBriefing, Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation of his product idea to the targeted corporation.At that time, Mr. [redacted] also completed a second questionnaire in which he provided positivefeedback about the Executive Briefing. A copy of his authorization and the questionnaire areattached. The presentation of his product idea was made to the corporation who, unfortunately,chose not to pursue the idea. Mr. [redacted] authorized the presentation to two additionalcorporations, who also declined to license his product idea.A representative from Davison contacted Mr. [redacted] to discuss the concerns listed inhis complaint. Following a review of the project, as outlined above, Mr. [redacted]’ only issuewas a request to have the physical product sample shipped to his attention. Davison hasforwarded the necessary paperwork to coordinate this shipment.As stated earlier, the simple fact is; the product development process provides noguarantees of financial gain. Our contracts and disclosures are explicit in this regard. While thisis of little comfort to a client who has expended considerable time, money, effort and emotioninto a project, the fact that a particular project does not bring financial gain to the client does notinvalidate the services that were provided. Davison has no obligation, legal or otherwise, torefund any monies paid by Mr. [redacted] for services rendered to his documented satisfaction.Sincerely[redacted]Associate CounselDavison Design and Development, Inc.EnclosuresTurning ideas