CAVEAT EMPTOR - BUYER BEWARE
I wanted to share with all who desire to use this company of their business practices. I sent a certified letter to the President, George M. Davidson, III. in April 2005. The only response I have received after the letter was sent is a compliance letter that was sent to my old address and then forwarded to my current home address because I had moved. The letter was sent after the company refused my requests to contact me in writing and no action has been taken by the company to reimburse me or settle my complaint. My email complaints were met with telephonic, verbal "strong arming" by Tony Larussa (sp?) and Mr. Valkanas (sp?). They made statements to my wife, stating "I did not know what I was talking about and did not know what I was doing." The initial response by Michael Leonardi, Director of New Products, was a negative "sigh" and he stated he would to talk to his engineers about the poor quality of their design and craftsmanship. Their marketing mock up was probably designed and completed in less than 30 minutes during one of their 8-10 hour day business production runs. I never signed off on their marketing design, therefore their contractal obligation was never fullfilled. I have enclosed a link to my website that shows what you can accomplish for less than $300.00 and a little ingenuity. Be advised once they have your money it is all downhill from there.
I have enclosed the copy of my letter I sent to Davison that clearly details my complaint it also shows a format as to how to write a letter if you have been scammed by a inventing promotion firm. You can mull thru the technical information as to my invention, but the most disappointing aspect of dealing with Davison is that they promise you the world, they hide behind organizational charts and creative marketing brochures and that they are able to legally prey on the general public. This company is a true charlatan. They are all fluff and no stuff. I hired Davison to meet my marketing goals and do this work for me. I work over 45 hrs per week and have a family to take care of (like most of us do). If you spend this type of money with an organization you would expect them to roll out the red carpet and do a great job. I have been in the insurance industry now for almost 9 years and my customers spend a lot of money on auto insurance and you had better believe I bend over backwards to take care of them-this is a service I am contractually obligated to do and do well in order to retain them as policy holders.' My invention is even designed to save all of us money on our auto insurance if we have a minor at fault accident. I recommend that before dealing with this company you resort back to your childhood and reread the story, "The Emporer's New Clothes." I have spent $13,433.00 with a company that espouses "Integrity" in it's definition of Inventegration (TM) business model. If there is law firm willing to take this company on and make them truly a legitimate business operation, please contact me. To all pontential inventors... please do not fall into the financial chasm of invention promotion firms. They do not work. I have called and verified with the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) that they are no longer in litigation with the federal government and their case has been settled. At the time of my letter though, with the information I had, I thought they were still in litigation with the federal government which is no longer the case. They have, however, been fined by the FTC and in 1997 they made millions but only 30k for their clients. Please read all reports on this great website and check out the USPTO and FTC about invention promotion firms. Also check out www.UIA.com, www.InventEd.org and www.marketlaunchers.com. These are legitimate companies that are really out to help inventors fulfill their dreams and financial goals.
All the best in your dreams and endeavors... invention helps helps make us a great country.
*here is a copy of the certified letter*
April 20, 2005
Davison Design and Development
595 Alpha Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15238-2911
Re: Termination of Representation & Demand for Refund
Dear G. M. Davison, III, CEO of Davison Design and Development:
This letter is to inform you that I want all services by your company to terminate immediately. I no longer desire to work with your company for the following reasons:
1. IT CAN BE SHOWN VERY LITTLE TIME AND CONCERTED EFFORT WENT INTO THE DESIGN OF "THE PLATE BUMPER." YOUR DESIGN TEAM SIMPLY TOOK TWO ONE- INCH DOME BUMPERS AND MATED THEM WITH WOOD SCREWS. NEOPRENE RUBBER SAMPLES SUCH AS THE DOME BUMPERS CAN EASILY BE ASCERTAINED AT NO COST AND THE WOOD SCREWS CAN BE PURCHASED AT AN ESTIMATED COST OF $1.50 AT ANY LOCAL HARDWARE STORE. I HAVE BEEN WRITING ESTIMATES ON DAMAGED VEHICLES FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS AND I HAVE YET TO SEE WOOD SCREWS IMPLEMENTED AS FASTENERS ON ANY AUTOMOBILE. IT CAN BE PROVED THAT VERY LITTLE CAPITAL WENT INTO THE DESIGN PROTOTYPE YOU WANTED ME TO APPROVE.
IT CAN BE SHOWN THE VIRTUAL PROTOTYPE YOU WANTED TO SEND TO EUROSPORT DAYTONA LOOKS LIKE AN "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCE LEVELING MOUNT OR BASE." THE DEPICTION YOU HAVE "DESIGNED" HAS NUMEROUS PATENTS ON IT. PLEASE, ALSO REMEMBER, PATENTS 5,904,386 (MAY 18, 1997-BUCHMAN) AND D422,542 (APRIL 11, 2000 -RICHTER). THE AFOREMENTIONED PATENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR IN DESIGN AND SCOPE TO THE PROTOTYPE YOU SENT ME TO APPROVE. DID I NOT SEND YOUR COMPANY NUMEROUS CONCEPT DRAWINGS AND IDEAS? DID I NOT SEND YOUR COMPANY THE APPLICABLE PATENT NUMBERS THAT MAY CONFLICT WITH MY CURRENT DESIGN 0N 2/18/04?
I PAID YOUR COMPANY TO DESIGN A PROTOTYPE THAT WILL NOT CONFLICT WITH OTHER PATENTED PRIOR WORKS OF ART. DOESN'T YOUR ORGANIZATION HAVE ENGINEERS AND PATENT AGENTS ON STAFF? IT IS OBVIOUS YOUR ORGANIZATION DOES NOT HAVE QUALITY CONTROL MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE INVENTEGRATION BUSINESS MODEL.
IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT I SENT YOUR COMPANY A CRUDE DIGITAL PROTOYPE OF MY IDEA CONCEPT THAT YOU NOT ONLY RECYCLED WITHOUT CREATIVITY BUT THEN COPIED IT POORLY IN YOUR DESIGN ATTEMPT. FOR EXAMPLE, THE USE OF WOOD SCREWS INSTEAD OF EITHER TRUSS OR FLAT HEX HEAD AUTO FASTENERS. THE USE OF SHARP- ENDED WOOD SCREWS WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE OF THE DESIGN OF MY INVENTION. DID I NOT SEND YOU INFORMATION REGARDING THE BENEFITS OF THIS INVENTION? THE PURPOSE OF THE INVENTION IS TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO BUMPER COVERS DURING LOW IMPACT COLLISIONS. YOUR DESIGN, AS SHOWN, WOULD HELP MINIMIZE AND POSSIBLY PREVENT DAMAGE TO THE BUMPER OF THE OPPOSING VEHICLE BUT THE SHARP- ENDED, WOOD SCREWS WOULD THEN CAUSE PUNCTURE DAMAGE TO THE BUMPER OF THE VEHICLE IT WAS FASTENED TO ON IMPACT.
2. IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT YOUR COMPANY IS ATTEMPTING TO DESIGN AND MARKET A CONCEPT TOO CLOSE IN SCOPE WITH OTHER PRIOR ART AND PATENTS. WHY WOULD YOU PLACE A CLIENT AND A SUCCESSFUL THIRD PARTY COMPANY LIKE EUROSPORT DAYTONA IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN BE SUED FOR BREACHES OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. DON'T YOU HAVE A VESTED, FUTURE FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE INVENTIONS OF YOUR CLIENTS? OUR CONTRACT STATES YOU RECEIVE 10% OF ANY LICENSING AGREEMENT. DON'T YOU HAVE PATENT SUPPORT CONSULTANTS AND A PATENT ATTORNEY ON STAFF TO REVIEW YOUR PROTOTYPES BEFORE THEY ARE PRESENTED TO MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS?
3. PLEASE ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS:
A. DID MY CLIENT, NORMAN G., FULFILL HIS OBLIGATION UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT? HE PAID $685.00 FOR THE INITIAL PRODUCT SEARCH AND PAID $12,748.00 FOR PRODUCT DESIGN AND MARKETING.
B. DID DAVISON DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT FULLFILL THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE CONTRACT?
C. CAN MR. MICHAEL LEONARDI, VP OF NEW PRODUCTS, BE DEPOSED UNDER OATH FOR STATING THAT BOTH THE PADDED LICENSE FRAME SCREW AND THE PADDED LICENSE PLATE FRAME WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,748.00 THAT WAS PAID YOUR COMPANY. MR. LEONARDI STATED THAT IT WAS APPROVED AND WOULD BE ADDED TO THE CONTRACT THAT I SIGNED ON 03/04/2004, ONLY TO SAY A YEAR LATER THAT IT WAS NOT INCLUDED NOW BECAUSE HIS SUPERVISOR SAID SO. MR. LEONARDI AND I AGREED THAT BOTH PROJECTS WOULD BE VERY SIMPLE TO DESIGN AND MARKET AND THAT BOTH WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ABOVE AMOUNT. MR. LEONARDI AGREED TO THIS IN ORDER TO PROCEED WITH THE CONTRACT. THIS CAN BE PROVED AS A DECEPTIVE PRACTICE, ACCORDING TO THE 1999 INVENTOR'S PROTECTION ACT.
D. CAN YOU SWEAR, UNDER OATH, THAT YOUR COMPANY WAS TO FILE A PROVISIONAL PATENT APPLICATION WITH THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FOR THE PADDED LICENSE PLATE FRAME ? THIS WAS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT I PAID YOUR COMPANY.
WHERE DID THIS MONEY GO?
E. CAN YOU SWEAR, UNDER OATH, THAT MR. TONY VALKANAS, DIRECTOR OF NEW PRODUCTS, ANSWERED ALL OF MY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE SUCCESS RATE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION IN WRITING AS I REQUESTED ON 7/14/2004 . BOTH MR. VALKANAS AND MR. LEONARDI STATED IN A CONFERENCE CALL THAT YOU ARE NO LONGER IN LITIGATION WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WHEN IN FACT YOU ARE.
4. IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT I FILED AND PRESENTED EITHER VIA FAX, EMAIL AND/OR AIRBORNE EXPRESS NUMEROUS DOCUMENTS THAT INCLUDED THE PADDED LICENSE PLATE FRAME. THE INITIAL PATENT RESEARCH THAT I PAID $685.00 FOR EVEN INCLUDES THE PADDED LICENSE PLATE FRAME IN THE REPORT.
5. IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT DAVISON DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT SHOWS LITTLE REGARD AND RESPECT TO IT'S CLIENTS' FINANCIAL FUTURE. IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT YOUR COMPANY HAS AN APPARENT HISTORY OF QUESTIONABLE BUSINESS PRACTICES. YOUR ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN AND IS CURRENTLY IN TROUBLE WITH BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATORS. OPERATION MOUSETRAP SHOWS: Davison & Associates: File No. 962 3310 / U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, in Pittsburgh, Civil Action No. 97-1278 / Steven Balster, FTC Cleveland Regional Office, 216-263-3455 YOUR COMPANY ALSO HAS HAD IT'S FINANCIAL ASSESTS FROZEN ACCORDING TO THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DOCKET TITLE:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER FREEZING
DAVISON & ASSOCIATES, INC.,
ASSETS, APPOINTING RECEIVER,
GEORGE M. DAVISON III, individually,
EXPEDITING DISCOVERY, AND
I DEMAND THAT ALL INFORMATION I PROVIDED TO YOU, INCLUDING WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, SKETCHES AND PROTOTYPE PICTURES BE IMMEDIATELY RETURNED TO ME IN 14 BUSINESS DAYS. I ALSO DEMAND TO BE REIMBURSED IN THE AMOUNT OF $12,748.00 THAT I HAVE ALREADY PAID YOUR ORGANIZATION BE RETURNED WITHIN 14 BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS LETTER. THIS IS MY THIRD WRITTEN ATTEMPT TO BE REIMBURSED.
I AM PREPARED TO FILE A WRITTEN COMPLAINT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BOTH THE STATES OF PENNSYLVANNIA AND VIRGINIA, THE FEDEREAL TRADE COMMISSION ,THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE AND TO WTAE. PLEASE DIRECT ALL WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
CC: RICHARD C. LITMAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
U.S.A. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.