Inventors > Complaint



Name of the Invention Promotion Company: Davison

Invention Promoter's Address:

Complainant's Name: John H. Arigoni

Complainant's Address: 924 River Road, Clarksburg, MA 01247

Customer's Name: John H. Arigoni


Name of mass media invention promoter advertised in:

Invention promotion services offered to be performed:

Explanation of complaint between customer and invention promoter:

I am experiencing some rather disheartening difficulties with the firm of Davison with which I have contracted for the so-called inventagration of my idea/invention. Enclosed please find a copy of my file. The first letter you will find is to Mr. George Davison, dated 1/24/05 with three items as listed in the letter. This letter and accompanying items will get you to the heart of my situation.

I would have filed this complaint sooner but I considered making my drawings and drafting my application of the utmost importance in regards to protecting my invention filing time, and I wanted to give Davison time to correct this problem, as per agreement item 6.(B), my friends and family who invested in my project wanted to file a civil action back in November of 04. I also took a little more time to file this complaint to ensure it was as accurate as possible.

In the beginning I contacted several companies to make a long story as short as possible Davison gave what I thought was the best response, prompt, with a follow up card and a postcard.

I began corresponding by phone and written letters with the company's director of new products redacted text. After I paid $685 for a patent search I entered into an agreement for the so-called process of inventagration for the total sum of $12,916. The agreement with redacted text was I would pay a deposit of $1,500 to start, which I did. Another $5,000 when I receive the virtual presentation and the remainder when the so-called product sample was ready.

I was left in the understanding at that time the virtual presentation would be a mockup in Styrofoam of what the product would be like, with a full color print of the same. I may have misunderstood him but that was the impression he left me with, which could have been intentional on his part.

redacted text told me the project would be completed and presentable to the target company by November 04. I was told that they would pick a company that they could match my idea/invention to and that once a match was made they would tailor the look and packaging to the company's profile as if the target company had made the sample themselves (see item H of the Product Sample Presentation Agreement). The so-called inventagration process. I was not allowed to participate in the selection of the target company. I question why?

I was also told that once completed I could come to the Davison plant and check out the finished product to insure it was to my expectations and that it functioned properly. Then pay the final payment but the sample would not be sent to the target company until after I paid the final payment. I paid an additional $6500 prior to the completion of the virtual presentation on good faith, the total paid to Davison at this point $8,685. After they had a contract and most of the money it was all-downhill from there. I was called once a month for a while then it went to two months. I started calling redacted text myself. Finally, on September 8, 2004 redacted text called me and left a message on my answering machine. He stated that things were going well and on track without any further details. I called for him at Davison the next day. I was told by a receptionist he was no longer employed at Davison. I asked to speak to anyone who could give me more information but was told everyone was in a meeting. I called several times after that and could not get through. I had a lot of questions and no way to get an answer. I e-mailed one of Davison's employee redacted text. This is the only e-mail listed. I sent the e-mail on September 9, 2004, listed as Item I in the letter to Mr. George Davison. See the enclosed letter to Mr. George Davison dated 1/24/05. I asked several questions and requested a copy of all written, recorded and computer programs concerning my invention The Toilet King as stipulated in the agreement item 4(E). I received nothing. I was called by Davison's Vise President, redacted text, who literally gave me hell for sending the e-mail. He also threatened to cancel the project. I didn't want to lose the time spent on it or any progress they may have made and I told him this. I just needed to be assured that my invention was safe and being done right.

I was called several days later by the new director of new products redacted text. He said he convinced redacted text to continue the project. I informed redacted text of my e-mail and wanted updates in writing and expected the virtual rendering in short order. I received no written updates and no calls for three weeks. Finally I called redacted text and demanded the virtual rendering or my money. He said I would be getting my virtual rendering very soon. A day or two went by and he called me and said the virtual rendering was on its way. I received the virtual rendering two days later.

It was of an entirely different invention. And only a picture on a Styrofoam board. Please refer to the last picture in the assembly labeled picture pack.

I invented the Toilet King. The enclosed pictures of my invention and the virtual rendering immediately follow the letter to Mr. Davison, dated 1/24/05. You can read the Declaration of Discovery in the beginning of the file. You will know what it is and how it works. The virtual presentation is of an entirely different invention. I never gave Davison the right to change the spirit of the idea/invention, nor would I have. Had Davison's employee made it clear that the contract would in effect give Davison that authority, or had the contract in plain language state Davison would be given by said contract the authority to change the spirit of the invention I never would have entered into the agreement.

redacted text said he knew exactly what I was asking for, that he understood what my invention was. Well the virtual presentation was nothing in the spirit of the invention. I was in the understanding that they could change the shape, color, size and the like to fit the target company's profile but not the spirit or function of the invention. I would have never agreed to that. I know what I invented and what it is worth to me. The enclosed pictures of my invention I made at home and the virtual presentation are two very different ideas. Please read the Declaration of Discovery, look at my pictures and then the virtual presentation. You will also note that I sent some picture locations and video files to them. First page of the picture pack.

redacted text here

Please read the letter that accompanies the virtual presentation. Please take notice that redacted text has printed redacted text name on the letter presenting the virtual presentation as if redacted text was still working at Davison two months after he left. I was furious. I felt very cheated. Why did redacted text affix redacted text name to the presentation? I called him and let loose, I told him I would sue them if they were trying to steal my invention. I wanted answers. I got nowhere. I called him back and apologized for my anger and told him he never should have signed redacted text name to the presentation, it's not right. I told him how to fix the problem with their presentation to make it acceptable and he said send me a letter. So I did. SEE Item II, in the letter to Mr. Davison. Mr. later told me Davison had power of attorney to sign redacted text name. I do not believe this, it may be Davison had power of attorney to sign his name while redacted text was an employee but not after he no longer worked there. I would like for you to check this out please. If redacted text did give power of attorney he would have had to sign a document to such effect, which would list the specifics.

When redacted text received the letter he called me and said that they would not make it the way I told him I would accept an electronic unit. I called redacted text to get this problem cleared up he was not very receptive. He then told me that they would make it the original way but I should put the demands in writing with pictures and the names of the manufacturers of the garden hose timers that gave me part of my idea. I wrote the letter to redacted text and I gave them 90 days to comply. I explained that my patent pending time was going to run out and if Davison had not wasted my time on a different idea we would be done already. See Item III in the letter to Mr. Davison.

I also let him know I stood to lose a lot of sales from the property owners I had approached in my market research.

If you read page two of the letter Item III to redacted text you will see how much I may have lost in sales, in addition to my $8,685 paid to Davison. I sent my letters both as faxes and by certified mail. Return receipt copy enclosed.

Please note in the letter to Mr. Davison, as per contract, I offered a good faith means to make things right. I tried to avoid a complaint as well as litigation. I received nothing in writing, no return of my offer. redacted text who said they would do the invention, as I "demanded", called me. That they would send me a virtual presentation by my deadline. I still do not have it. redacted text called me on 3/23/05 for an update. I asked him for details he said he did not know what the design team is doing. I told him "You're the director of new products and you don't have a clue as to what the design team is doing. I tried to get you people to keep me informed, to work with you and make sure you are doing the job right and you can't tell me what your design team is doing? "It's no wonder we can't get along".

To make this as short as possible. During the time of 90 days given by me in the letter to redacted text, I went to North Carolina to spend Christmas with my daughter. I also spent several days in Boston with my other daughter. I arrived back home January 5th. From January 5th until Saturday March 26th I made my own drawings and description and filed my patent application to protect my patent date. I also have completed the electronic model depicted in Item II but have developed a small heat problem during testing so it is being adjusted accordingly. So now Davison has had more than the 90 days I gave them and still no real evidence of any progress. The most I will get any time soon will be another picture. If the picture is of one view I will not know if the presentation depicts the actual idea/invention. Then there would be if I could accept a picture another (only God knows how long it will take) before I could get any real physical product. If it takes Davison 9 months to make a picture how long will it take them to make the so-called product sample?

I received a call from redacted text on April 06, 2005. We had pretty much the same conversation about my invention. I also told him I had filed my patent application and if the presentation was like the first one I would not sign it. I asked if it was done and he said no. I also told him, as per the original discussion with redacted text, that I would come view and check out the product sample IE the prototype and pay them then if it was right. I actually expected to see the sample in operation.

I received a call from redacted text shortly after and he told me if I did not sign off on the new product virtual presentation Davison would sue me. It appeared that redacted text told him I was not going to sign a release on the new presentation without saying if it was not right so he was upset when he called. Then he informed me I could come to their plant but I had to pay them before I would be allowed to look at the finished product sample. That is not what I agreed to with redacted text. I have to ask.

Why won't they let me see the product sample first? Item 4(F) of the agreement states I have a right to review all materials prepared by Davison. It does not say only after I pay them the final payment.

I see a lot of smoke and mirrors, I heard a lot of fast talking, and a lot of what appears to be fanfare in the contract but it appears that the contract is designed to be misleading. redacted text did not present these new developments prior to the agreement. Pennsylvania Statute Trade and Commerce States: (Title 73) 201-3. Unlawful acts or practices; exclusions. "Unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" means any one or more of the following:

Causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services;

Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that he does not have;

The first in reference to the contract, the second in reference to the affixing of redacted text name to the presentation.

I feel that Davison should reimburse me my losses times three, as per Title 73, 201-9.2.
Private actions.

  1. Any person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act or practice declared unlawful by section 3 of this act, may bring a private action to recover actual damages or one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater. The court may, in its discretion, award up three times the actual damages sustained, but not less then one hundred dollars ($100), and may provide such additional relief, as it deems necessary or proper. The court may award to the plaintiff, in addition to other relief provided in this section, costs and reasonable attorney fees.
  2. Any permanent injunction, judgment or order of the court made under section 4 of this act shall be prima facie evidence in an action brought under section 9.2 of this act that the defendant used or employed acts or practices declared unlawful by section 3 of this act.

I also feel that changes need to be made in the laws that govern the type of business Davison is in concerning working with the inventor and giving the inventor full access to all information in the process without any secrecy whatsoever and to make sure the inventor accepts what they are doing all through the process. I posed the question, why? Pertaining to not being allowed to participate in selection of the target company. I now ask is this a designed manipulation of a contract to change an inventor's idea/invention in order to be able to claim the actual invention for their own or for some other entity, by means of a confusing or misleading contract? How many companies do this? How many people have had this happen to them by Davison or any other company?

If you note the contract as stipulated in the agreement item 4(E) requires Davison give the information on request and in my e-mail of September 9, I requested all information but Davison did not comply. I also requested details and information over the phone to both redacted text and redacted text. I was never allowed to speak to Mr. Davison even though I requested such to redacted text.

Also, Davison regards the first unit made to be a product sample. The fact is the first working unit of any invention is a prototype. The laws should address this as fact no matter what any company calls or labels the first working unit by law it must be regarded as a prototype. I feel and it is my opinion that Davison is calling the inventions first working unit product sample so they can change the inventor's spirit of the invention to something different and not be responsible.

At any rate, I would like it if you could cause Davison to refund all my money and sign and agreement that they will not make or work on any invention in the field of the Toilet King and agree that Davison is not entitled to any realized income I may acquire from my invention. I prefer not to enter into litigation if it can be avoided even if I lose the sales I had lined up because of the time Davison has wasted. In the alternative and at the very least Davison be required to complete the process post haste and allow me to review all data and see the completed product sample as they call it function prior to payment.

Additionally, I decided it would be best to file the complaint with your office instead of the U.S. Attorney General's office as I indicated in the letter to Mr. Davison, as a matter of jurisdiction.

If you have any questions please call me at 1-413-663-3136.

Thank you very much for your time.

Signed: /s/ John H. Arigoni                           Date: April 14, 2005

KEY: e Biz=online business system fees=fees forms=formshelp=help laws and regs=laws/regulations definition=definition (glossary)

The Inventors Assistance Center is available to help you on patent matters.Send questions about USPTO programs and services to the USPTO Contact Center (UCC). You can suggest USPTO webpages or material you would like featured on this section by E-mail to the While we cannot promise to accommodate all requests, your suggestions will be considered and may lead to other improvements on the website.