Resolved
Sherlene D

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer
| map-marker Portsmouth, Virginia

Resolved: Refund request

Updated by user Feb 03, 2022

Company fixed the issue and I have been provided with partial refund. I was contacted and the matter has been resolved..

Original review Jan 04, 2022
I paid $900 to Anthony Isacco in March of 2021.I found that the Cool Sleeve was already invented in 2007. I called to ask for a refund and he had not sent it to me and I have been calling him and he's not answering calls or emails.I spoke to him in July and he was not professional not have sent my money back Please refund my money for the invention that's already been in the market for years. Thank you
View full review

Davison Inventions's reply to: Resolved: I paid them money for a product I never got.

Customer concerns upset everyone and the staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. A review of your file indicates that Davison has performed all services with your approval and authorization, and to your documented satisfaction. Further, all services were completed by May 2017, more than two years ago. To raise concerns now, contradicting the documented evidence is disingenuous at best. There is no support for the complaint.

You contracted for the creation of a rendering that depicted your product idea and presentation material. You also contracted for the creation of a short video describing the product idea. You approved the proposed rendering, authorized the presentation of the idea and completed two questionnaires (one about the rendering and the second about the presentation material) providing positive feedback. Your product idea was presented to the targeted corporation. The corporation chose not to license the idea, and you authorized the presentation to three additional corporations; none of which chose to license the product idea. No additional services have been secured.

Your contention that you paid of for a “product”, to the extent that implies a physical product sample, is incorrect. You entered an “Integrated Product Rendering” agreement. The language in the contract, from its title to the specific terms, is clear that a graphic representation of the product idea, i.e. a rendering, depiction, design, was to be developed. No term refers to the construction of a physical prototype.

Your fundamental complaint is that the product idea has not been licensed. Davison simply does not guarantee a particular product will be licensed; much less guarantee a financial gain. You were informed, in advance of any contract for services, about the historical success rates of securing a license and of realizing a financial gain. The contracts for services repeatedly provide disclosures that there is no guarantee 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.

For over 25 years, Davison has helped everyday people prepare and present their ideas to corporations, manufacturers, and retailers to see if they would be willing to license the product ideas. Our exclusive idea to product method is responsible for more products on the store shelves than any other competitor in this industry.

Quick facts about Davison and our process

• We are based in Pittsburgh, PA and works with clients from around the world.
• We have been in business since 1989.
• Our products have been sold by over 1,000 stores & online retailers.
• We design, build and package products for both individuals and corporate clients.
• Our staff is dedicated to helping bring new product ideas to life.
• Our staff has won numerous design awards for innovative product designs.
• We are a member of the Online Business Bureau and other affiliate groups.

We encourage any questions or concerns be brought to our attention at CCA@davisoninvents.com. Maybe we can help. Thank you.
Resolved
Thomas J Ofh

This review is from a real person who provided valid contact information and hasn't been caught misusing, spamming or abusing our website. Check our FAQ

Verified Reviewer

Resolved: I paid them money for a product I never got.

Updated by user Sep 20, 2020

Company fixed the issue and I have been provided with partial refund. Davison offered a partial refund and I accepted so the matter has been resolved..

Original review Oct 08, 2019

I submitted an idea to Davison, paid over $ 10.000 over a period of years and they just strung me along with the hope of getting my idea to market, sadly this did not happen, they are ignoring my phone calls, and emails in an attempt to resolve this matter.

Loss:
$11
Pros:
  • Politeness
Cons:
  • Scam artists
Reason of review:
Return, Exchange or Cancellation Policy

Preferred solution: Full refund

Davison Inventions's reply to: Resolved: Apparent Copy of Existing Product / Not an Original

To Mr. Gary Bryant - Report # 699133,

At the outset, please note that prior to your posting the current complaint, on 08/27/2015 the Office of the President reached out to you to arrange a discussion to address your concerns. There was no response to this initial request. On 09/21/2015, a second request was forwarded and you did respond. A call with the President of Davison has been arranged.

As stated in Davison’s prior response, dated 05/26/2015, the services on your project were completed after a full disclosure of fees, scope of services, and licensing success rates; with your express written approval; and to your documented satisfaction. Davison has been, and continues to be, willing to work with you to address, within the scope of the contract terms, any concerns you may have with your project. It is anticipated that the scheduled call with the company President will be productive.

The issues you raise about your specific project were previously commented on in Davison’s initial response. Further, these matters will be the subject of discussion in the scheduled call with the company President. However, there are a number of statements in your complaint that need to be clarified. First, Davison (Davison Design and Development, Inc.) has not changed its corporate name, and it is not operating as Inventionland. Inventionland, LLC. is its own legal entity, separate and distinct from Davison. Second, you, as with all Davison clients, were provided a complete disclosure of Davison’s “track record” when you submitted your idea, and before you entered any contract for services. Specifically, you acknowledged that you received and read these disclosures on 08/17/2012, at 19:56:43. Finally, your reference to a class action suit in 2008 (Project Mousetrap), is incorrect. There simply was no class action suit filed against the company in 2008. The case you are incorrectly citing was a 1997 case by the FTC against nearly the entire invention promotion industry. That was fifteen (15) years before you contacted Davison. At the time you initiated contact, the company was, and continues to be, in complete compliance with all requirements of the law.

For over 25 years, Davison has helped everyday people prepare and present their ideas to corporations, manufacturers, and retailers to see if they would be willing to license the product ideas. Our exclusive idea to product method is responsible for more products on the store shelves than any other competitor in this industry.

Quick facts about Davison and our process

We are based in Pittsburgh, PA and works with clients from around the world.
We have been in business since 1989.
Our products have been sold by over 1,000 stores & online retailers.
We design, build and package products for both individuals and corporate clients.
Our staff of 250 plus are dedicated to helping bring new product ideas to life.
Our staff has won numerous design awards for innovative product designs.
We are a member of the Online Business Bureau and other affiliate groups.

We encourage any questions or concerns be brought to our attention at CCA@davisoninvents.com. Maybe we can help. Thank you.
Resolved
Amela Gcj
map-marker Sacramento, California

Resolved: Apparent Copy of Existing Product / Not an Original

Updated by user Oct 05, 2015

All issues with Davison Design and Development that were posted on this forum (Pissed Consumer) are now RESOLVED completely to my satisfaction. 10/05/2015

I am happy to say that Davison is willing to work with you all the way through your experience with them and your satisfaction is of great concern to them.

Original review Sep 13, 2015

I submitted an idea to Davison Design way back in September of 2012 for a product that was intended to be a safety device that would be partially integrated into a vehicle with some components to be worn by the driver and a seat sensor in the child’s car seat intended to alert a parent that they intentionally or negligently left their child inside the car.

Davison being aware of my concept and after collecting my funds $14,000, began to put my idea into a prototype of some kind that was really someone elses' idea from years earlier. I believe it was just a rendering on paper at the time with a pictorial of the product and the attendant packaging. When I first saw what they presented me, I really did not know exactly what it did as far as features but it looked an awful lot like a product I had seen in a catalog from Safety Technology. I wrote to a key employee Jason Zerbach, telling him that this was not really what I had in mind and that it was way over simplified, possibly even a copy for the most part which would have saved them immense amounts of money to simply put a twist on an already existing product. It really casts a shady picture as to legitimate engineering claims that they claim. There are simply too many similarities in my product and the one already on the market.

I also contended that the product was definitely not an ORIGINAL as they promised. They should have easily ascertained that fact with their claimed exposure to the marketplace . When I submitted my idea to them in the beginning, they made this big deal out of keeping quiet about my idea and “DO NOT tell anyone before its time. Jason Zerbach VP of new products told me that they had a meeting in which his higher up told him he could even foresee other applications such as using this device on pets as well (HYPE). In fact I told Jason (sent an e-mail) that the product that he presented to me as a prototype was very similar to one that was already on the market (Child Guard Panda) and sold by a distributor in Florida that has them made overseas (China) to sell to their distributors. My product being electronically, mechanically, and in appearance, is an almost identical product with basically ONLY cosmetic differences. What they presented me with was not a rendering of my ORIGINAL idea at all. IT really looks like they tried to take the easy way out when fabricated my product. I was wondering if they really did even a minimal product search to make sure my product did not “infringe on” another product patented and on the market. They claimed to have done some because they sent a few vaguely similar product plans to my original idea, yet they chose instead to come up with a product that required really very little engineering work. The product that they presented to me (Forget Me Not) claims to do the exact same thing that the Child Guard does. According to one Patent Law Website, this likely constitutes infringement based on the Doctrine of equivalents in Patent Law that the courts have expanded upon in recent times. Though I am not sure it is patented since it was designed here in the USA but is manufactured in China. Despite these facts, the new products person in charge (Jason Zerbach) assured me it was “different enough” to not matter. Not knowing what all of the product features were, I signed an approval based on reliance that it was actually different from the product that I earlier told them was almost a COPY. Even though I protested I relied on Davison’s Claimed Expertise to my disadvantage and my disappointment. According to a paper that I signed, they were to inform me if my product had any problems including a finding that it might be subject to patent concerns. But patent issues aside, their own words state that if they conflict with products already on the market (below), this would be a NEGATIVE issue having to do with marketing success.

CONSIDER: This is the “New Product Sample Agreement” from DAVISON DESIGN and Development.

A. Creating Presentation Materials

Section (iv)

Preliminary Product Design: Development Team "brainstorming" sessions will be held to uncover product design solutions that blend with the targeted corporation's manufacturing capabilities. The ergonomics and aesthetics of the product are also taken into consideration. This subjective process often results in the Development Team making modifications and enhancements, which are sometimes substantial, to the proposed solution or the preliminary design submitted by Client, particularly if Client's proposed design is not a cost effective solution to solving the problem outlined by the client, does not reflect current manufacturing techniques or may be in conflict with products patented or on the market.

Davison even went against their OWN CLAIM because even if the Child Guard isn’t patented, my product conflicts with one already on the market. Not one company among all their “so called trusted” manufacturers showed any interest in licensing my product. This happened time and time again. So they would routinely call you each time with the predictable bad news, and try to cheer you up by smooth assurances from licensing, and of course they topped it off by soliciting more money from me to once again present to a manufacturer. It was always $385.00 more in order to present it to yet another “really big” manufacturer.

The product sample that they sent me upon my request, looked as though it couldn’t have cost more than a hundred dollars to fabricate. In FACT, they sent a bracelet and remote, that actually did not work at all. There was a proximity detection adjustment wheel that I tried to adjust, and it sunk inside of the remote case with just a light touch of my thumb. This product that was supposed to be a WORKING prototype of a quality marketable product, was neither. The basic design of the working product was almost the same as the Child Guard Panda, that it seems they may have copied. It does the same thing and the problem solved is the same as mine.

My complaint to them fell on deaf ears with DAVISON and the FTC just sent me a pamphlet on not trusting certain companies and how to tell if they are a FRAUD. DAVISON sent me a reply to my complaint saying that I signed the contract approving the design and that’s that. They have you over a barrel and my money was in a "mousetrap" so to speak. I am now stuck with what looks like a $10.00 maybe $20.00 sample product that cost me just over $15,000. This product is using outdated technology as well as it being in conflict with an already existing product in the marketplace. It is also likely un-patentable. My contention is the fact that they create reliance upon them as being the experts, but their track record as I found out later is not good at all. Through all the hype they have on their website are perceived experts in their field to the unsuspecting consumer that comes to them for services. The reliance is unjustified in my opinion, yet they continue to operate by another name now. Sadly many are continuing to use them because they are really not aware of the potential unfavorable possibilities that await them. They are basically doing the same things that caused a class action suit in 2008 (Project Mousetrap), yet now they have an escape clause through a legal disclaimer hidden away on page 2 of their website. Those who do not see the latent disclaimer, are left with only arbitration to address their complaints. Davison Design and Development (Now known as Inventionland) knows that it costs as much for a plaintiff stands to lose for them to go through arbitration. So Davison is pretty much untouchable as to legal remediation to their clients. Unless I get money back from them they put some of my retirement in a "Money Eating Mousetrap."

I am a reasonable person and I just want some of my money back.

I am out $14,000 plus presentation fees for about $1,000.

Loss:
$14000
Pros:
  • Claims
Cons:
  • Delivered product
Reason of review:
Not as described/ advertised

Preferred solution: Let the company propose a solution

Davison Inventions's reply to: Resolved: Davison sold me a copyrighting product for $9300

To Mr. Enver Sejdiu - Report # 436801,

We understand that customer service is vital in all businesses and is imperative when operating a successful business. Customer concerns upset everyone and our staff works very hard to troubleshoot them so communication errors are kept to a minimum. Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, clients are occasionally dissatisfied. You raised your concerns and we have attempted to address those concerns, even our company President has attempted to directly address your concerns. You have now chosen a new forum to voice your dissatisfaction.

Your posting has a thread of truth ? specifically that you entered into an agreement for research services which were performed, following that initial service you entered into an agreement for the design and construction of a product sample, a proposed design was submitted for your approval and you did not approve the design. Unfortunately, that is where the truth ends. Your post implies that you were provided with an evaluation of your idea. The disclosure statements you acknowledged BEFORE entering into any contract, as well as the contracts themselves, are explicitly clear that Davison does not provide evaluations of product ideas. Your post claims the proposed design ?had absolutely nothing to do with my idea?. It is important to note that Davison is not a prototype manufacturer that creates a product sample based upon the client?s preconceived notions. Davison is a design and development firm whose goal is to create a product sample that is a cost-effective solution to the problem identified by the client. The contract explicitly states that there may be modifications, sometimes significant, to the client?s proposed solution. Also, the contact explicitly states that use of OEM parts is anticipated. Further, even if the contract stated the product sample was to be designed exactly as your pre-conceived idea, you did not provide any specifications, plans, schematics or any information that would permit the company to make it and you acknowledged that in the contract.

The most concerning issue is your refusal to discuss a re-design of the product sample. The express purpose of securing a client?s approval of the design, before the physical product sample is constructed, is to resolve any issues at the early stage of the development process. You did not approve the initial proposed design, which is fine. However, despite our efforts, you have refused to discuss changes to the design. Davison remains willing to address those concerns.

For over 23 years, Davison has helped everyday people prepare and present their ideas to corporations, manufacturers, and retailers to see if they would be willing to license the product ideas. Our exclusive idea to product method is responsible for more products on the store shelves than any other competitor in this industry.
Quick facts about Davison and our process

We are based in Pittsburgh, PA and works with clients from around the world.
We have been in business since 1989.
Our products have been sold by over 1,000 stores & online retailers.
We design, build and package products for both individuals and corporate clients.
Our staff of 250 plus are dedicated to helping bring new product ideas to life.
Our staff has won numerous design awards for innovative product designs.
We are a member of the Online Business Bureau and other affiliate groups.

We encourage any questions or concerns be brought to our attention at CCA@davisoninvents.com. Maybe we can help. Thank you.
Resolved
Sierra Btu
map-marker Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Resolved: Davison sold me a copyrighting product for $9300

Davison Inventions - Davison sold me a copyrighting product for $9300
Davison Inventions - Davison sold me a copyrighting product for $9300 - Image 2

Davison take your money and give you a copyright product. In every way you are a looser.

After submitting my idea only to Davison, I received a call from Phillip Cotis and he told me that my idea is brilliant. He could not believe that no one has thought of this before. As he thought my product will be a worldwide use, he wanted to start on my idea as soon as possible. I first paid $750 for Davison to undertake a patent research to see if this product exists or if someone had such a patent. After a month or so Phillip got back to me and he said that this product DOES NOT exist and everything was possible to bring my idea to life.

He gave me a $9,300 ( all ready paid $6750 price in order to design and make a prototype of my idea. I paid them and after 6 months they came back to me with a design that had absolutely nothing to do with my idea and the design was a copyright of a product that already exists and is selling in the market. (Even Barbra Browning, the Licensing Director agrees that the two designs look exactly the same).

After refusing to sign and accept the design they presented to me, I spoke to Leo (engineer) and he said that the reason why they “made” the product this was is because to make my product will cost a lot of money and we will not be able to get anyone to manufacture it. Even thought I paid $750 for research and this shows that they did not do any research or word on my idea at all, instead when the time came for them to represent something to me, they simply went in the internet, found a product, copy and pasted the pictures and sent it to me.

I also spoke to Barbra Browning, she said we are sorry we could not design your product and we will NOT refund you the money as we worked on your project. Also when I mentioned what Phillip and Leo had told me, she simply said that she is different from them and does not know what they would say to me (which I do understand) but since all of them are working on my idea wouldn’t a reasonable person communicate with the team instead of making up stories every time they spoke to me. Also their stories never give you a direct answer, when I ask them a question they find a way to go around it and not answer it (a typical sales SCAM persons answers).

I would advise everyone to NOT GIVE DAVISON ANY MONEY!!! From my experience what I have found out is that Davisons’ are scam artists, they will take your money and find a way to make you think that they are in the right and you will not be able to do anything about it. You can end up with just a copied picture of an existing product that will cost you thousands of dollars.

I have all my conversations recorded and also have pictures. If you wish to see/listen to them do not hesitate to contact me and I will happily send them to you. erik-40@***.com

At the moment my first priority is to advise and stop other people from making the same mistake I did. I am currently preparing my case to take to the American Arbitration Association (AAA

Loss:
$6750

Contact Information

Website:
Mailing Address:
RIDC Park, 595 Alpha Dr.
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15238
United States
Phone:
(800) 544-3327
Contact Davison Inventions Customer Service

Latest Question

How much will this cost me?

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article