Response 2012 Hinsch
Invention Promoter’s Name: Davison
Complainant’s Name: Cindy Hinsch
Mail Stop 24
Commissioner for Patents
Inventors Assistance Program
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Re: Reply to Complaint of Cindy Hinsch dated 12/03/2012
Dear Sir or Madam;
This letter is to address the complaints raised by Cindy Hinsch against Davison Design and Development, Inc. (Davison). Ms. Hinsch’s demand for a full refund is completely without merit. She contracted for services, received the initial benefit of our design personnel, claimed dissatisfaction, and created her own sample incorporating some of the modifications proposed by Davison. Now in an effort to extract a full refund, she sets forth the following false statements and incorrect characterizations about her contract and the services provided;
1. She states that Davison was hired to “market” her idea. This is false: Davison does not market products and does not provide marketing services. Davison was hired to design and construct a product sample and to make a presentation of her product sample to a potential corporation for possible licensing. It is the subsequent corporation which may then market a specific product.
2. She states she paid $11,840.00 – this is false. The contract fee was in fact that amount; however she has received discounts of over $2,500.00.
3. She states the contract was to “construct my idea” for which she provided “detailed specifications”. This is an inaccurate characterization. She contracted for design and development services to address a problem she identified. The contract explicitly states “Client acknowledges that there have been no representations….that the design to be created by Davison will function in the manner and with attributes as originally conceived by Client….This Agreement does not contain or incorporate any specifications, performance characteristics or other qualities for the design or product sample to be produced.
4. She raises a concern that Davison “may market my idea”. This is unfounded. The contract explicitly states “Davison promises to keep all aspects concerning….the idea….in the highest level of confidentiality. All materials....are subject to the Client’s approval prior to the release of any information.”
5. She alleges “their contract says they are partners with my idea….” This is false: the contract explicitly states; “It is hereby acknowledged by the Client that Davison’s royalty/commission percentage is not, in any form, an ownership interest in the idea.”
Davison’s goal, as agreed to by the client under the terms of the contract, is the development of a cost effective solution to the problem identified by the client. Pursuant to the contract, Davison developed an initial design for the product sample and submitted it to Ms. Hinsch for her approval. She did not approve the design and Davison offered to re-design the sample consistent with the terms of the agreement. Ms. Hinsch refused. Subsequently we learned that she developed her own sample which interestingly, contains many of the modifications proposed in our initial design. Davison then offered to provide services, at no additional cost, to promote the design which she had created. Again, Ms. Hinsch declined. Finally, Davison offered a partial refund, taking into account the cost savings for services that remained to be performed. Ms. Hinsch declined this offer.
Davison remains committed to Ms. Hinsch project and remains willing to proceed forward in a positive direction. However, we have not deviated from the express terms of the contract and a full refund is not warranted.
/s/ Frank Vescio /s/ David M. DeMay
President Patent Counsel
Davison Design and Development, Inc. Davison Design and Development, Inc.