Cease And Desist · Lacoste · Sweatshops · TLR&Co · TLR&Co. · TLRANDCO. ·Nov 28, 2022

Does Lacoste use Sweatshops?

At this point, we're actually tired of these Lacoste posts. I would rather write about new music, or post pictures, talk about brands and shops and other random cool things, but we keep receiving emails with demands from them. Yesterday, March 31st 2012, we received yet another email from the Lacoste's lawyers demanding that we stop having opinions about Lacoste and to stop repeating them. Basically they are violating our 1st amendment rights, and they want us to just walk it off. Quite frankly, we are upset! We once again explained that our opinion and belief towards Lacoste's overseas business practices were only brought up to explain the thought process of a hand drawn design, after we complied to their cease and desist order. It had nothing to do with Lacoste directly, but more so to do with big corporations in general using sweatshops, or the belief that that they have in the past. After we complied with ALL their demands, they refused to comply with our simple requests. We ask our readers to take all the evidence from our our last three blog postings to make your own desicion. Does Lacoste use swaetashops? We really don't know, but we believe that many companies do and we have a strong opinion about that. We requested that Lacoste show us some proof that they have never used sweatshops in the past, but the documentation has been denied to us. Here's what Lacoste's lawyers sent us yesterday. Our response follows.

-Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

-Our response to this as as follows:

Gayle,

We received your email today on Friday, March 30th 2012, which is late considering we gave you 8 days from our last email on March 8th 2012 to get back to us on time. We were left no choice but to post the contents of that email on our blog as well. Lets get to the point though. We are not the only people that have been trying to get proof that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS and we gave you evidence of that in our last email. That has been happening for years and you and I both know about that! Now it is true that we can't get physical evidence due to the fact that we do not have access to any of these facilities nor do we have a safe and trouble free invitation. That is typical of anyone trying to expose the use of sweatshops, but maybe you or 20/20 can help us out with that. The only resources we do have are real life situations and internet research to go off of. If that is all we have to reference, and you refuse to send us proof to change our minds, then that alone makes us BELIEVE that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS or that they have used them in the past. Again it is our BELIEF and we hold that as a right as American citizens. How is that our fault or defamatory when you wont give us actual proof that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops or that they have never used them in the past? Now, your clients (LACOSTE) and your law firm can easily prove us wrong, but you choose not to. We find that to be weird and suspicious. The same could've been said about us if we did not provide you with evidence and pictures to prove that we ourselves do not use sweatshops. As you put it, "we think this will be in interest of the court.". That is what you were trying to do to us in your last email, but we complied and gave you hard evidence. You asked us to provide you with proof about our clothing brand and where we manufacture, which we openly gave you. On top of that, you gave us a rebuttal to our evidence, which was pretty ridiculous to say the least. We didn't have to send you that information and you were in no position to ask us for that as well, but we complied because we have nothing to hide. A question we want to ask is why is it up to us to prove that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops when you have all the resources at your disposal to prove us wrong? It makes absolutely no sense. All we want is proof or a public apology. Simple documentation can fix all this, but you chose not to produce any. Belief or not, you're making it too easy to pick a side. By the way, Gayle, it is also illegal to say something is "MADE IN" a certain country when it is not. If you are alleging we did this with our hats, and you're wrong, then we believe this will be in interest of the court. Now where is your proof and documentation that we asked you for? Oh that's right, you have no evidence to prove that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops or that they have never used them in the past. That is clear to everybody that has read our blog in the last few days. Thanks for helping us out with proving our point.

Now, everybody that we talk to, which includes employees from LACOSTE, think its very weird and pretty shady of you to just deny that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS and not provide simple documentation to prove otherwise. You, nor LACOSTE have made a statement saying that they don't use sweatshops or that they have never used them in the past. Its all been runaround emails saying they follow rules and other BS. Rules are meant to be broken Gayle, and and quite frankly, your emails are a slap in the face to your own clients. If all we have to go off of is internet research and what we personally saw with our own eyes, and all you do is send these dumb runaround emails, then we have no other choice but to BELIEVE that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS or that they have truly used them in the past. What are we supposed to do, just believe you? You're a lawyer! Prove us wrong. Show us some proof like we showed you. We once again invite YOU and LACOSTE to provide evidence to support your denial that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS or that the have in the past. If you cant, then we will once again post every email you have sent us and let the public decide for themselves. We wont even have to tell people that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS because you will be saying it for us. We thank you for that! Then you can file defamation charges against yourselves. And guess what Gayle, the public is going to look at whats available to them. Internet research and your lack of documentation that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops is all they have. What else can they go off of? The internet and your lack of documentation to back up your denial is all the evidence people need. I wonder what people will think? I wonder what your clients will think when our simple request to protect their brand name is damaged by their own lawyers. A simple clause on their website doesn't come close to the damage you have made by not providing physical documentation to show that your clients have never used sweatshops in the past.

Now, you're right about your clients having no obligation to send us this information and proof that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops, but to protect their brand name and good will, they should. That's why you sent us a cease and desist letter, because we were diluting their brand with a parody of a trademark as you say. Your law firm is doing a better job of diluting their brand name by not producing evidence to support your denial that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops or that they never have in the past. Instead, you turn a cease and desist order into a defamation case and PR nightmare for your clients? You're making your clients look like they're hiding something and at the same time making our point valid. You have no evidence to prove that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops or that they never have in the past do you? That is why we still believe, and even more so now, that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS or that they have in the past. We will continue to believe this until you or your clients show supporting evidence to prove otherwise. Pretty simple. We don't even have to say it anymore.

Now, the only real reason we're even talking about defamation and sweatshops and federal court is because you sent us a cease and desist order, which we complied to. Then we posted that on our blog to explain the teaching and reasoning behind the design and the research to go with it. This upset your firm and apologies will not be given for that. We also will not retract any statements we believe in. The only statement we will retract is Pentland being LACOSTE's parent company, and we thank you for at least clearing that up. At this point, we feel you are now violating our 1st Amendment rights to free speech and it is quite upsetting! We think the court will be especially interested in this, especially after we complied with EVERY SINGLE email you have sent us. Again the only reason why we even mentioned LACOSTE and sweatshops was to describe the thought process of a hand drawn design we created from scratch. Your firm is blowing this way out of proportion and it is only helping us out. Now, one of the main reasons why we came to the United States is for freedom, to believe and say what we feel without the threat of being attacked for it. You are now violating our rights as American citizens and we will fight till our last breath to stand up against that. We will not have our rights violated and I think the general public will back us up on it. Also the fact that our 1st amendment rights supersede any trademark law in federal court. We are taking this very seriously and suggest that you stop sending us demands, especially those telling us what we can and cant say. Start producing evidence to help your clients out and we'll leave the defamation of LACOSTE to you and your firm. You guys have been handling that perfectly.

We will be contacting LACOSTE and any of their department heads we can reach with a personal email and letter with the contents of all our collected emails. We will also be posting this email to our site along with your contact information as well. This time, instead of US telling people that LACOSTE USES SWEATSHOPS, YOU will be doing it for us.Thanks Gayle. You have by Monday April 9th 2012 to send us the documentation we requested. If we receive another email from you, your clients, or your law firm demanding anything more from us, or your email does not have the documentation we asked for proving that LACOSTE does not use sweatshops and never has in the past, we have no choice but to let our community and media outlets know about this. This is literally harassment and a violation of our 1st amendment rights. We have broken no laws and we have already complied to your cease and desist order.

Take care of yourself,

TLR&Co.

Word Is Bond

-So what do you think about that? Does Lacoste use sweatshops? We invite you to send Lacoste and their lawyers an email with your thoughts and requests for the truth. Feel free to us send us an email to info@tlrandco.com and let us know your thoughts on the situation.

LACOSTE'S LAWYERS:

Richard Lehv: rlehv@fzlz.com

Todd Martin: tmartin@fzlz.com

Craig Mende: cmende@fzlz.com

Gayle Morales: GMorales@fzlz.com

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume:

I have received your email of March 8, confirming that you have complied with our cease and desist letter. I wrote to you on February 29 because the phrase “just gonna lay low” can have more than one meaning. Thank you for clarifying your intent.

I note that you have not provided any evidence to support your claims that Lacoste sells “slave made tennis gear,” “us[es] sweatshops in countries like Guatemala and India,” “pay[s] some of these people 8 cents a day,” “hire[s] kids, some [of whom] are missing limbs from working in the famous brand's manufacturing facilities,” “rob[s] these sweatshop workers of a quality life,” and causes “limbs lost, [and] lives destroyed.” In addition, you appear to be misinformed as to the ownership of Lacoste. Lacoste is not, as you claim, owned by Pentland. Since you cannot support these claims, please do not repeat them.

Further, having made specific, defamatory allegations about Lacoste, and having not been able to back them up, you are in no position to ask our client to provide you with proof or documentation as to the working conditions under which its products are made, and our client has no obligation to provide you with any such material or information. I have explained Lacoste’s policy on working conditions, which is confirmed on its website. If you have any reason to dispute this, I once again invite you to provide evidence to support your claims.

Finally, with respect to your own products, you claim the hats you bought in LA are marked “Made in USA,” but the phrase “Made in USA” may refer only to the plastic closure at the back of the cap. As for hooded sweatshirts, you deny that you sell these, but they are clearly shown on your website, although they do not bear the headless alligator logo.

Accordingly, Lacoste reserves all of its rights and remedies should you engage in any infringing conduct in the future or repeat any of your false and defamatory statements.

Very truly yours,

Richard Lehv

Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

866 United Nations Plaza

New York, NY 10017

This email is sent on behalf of Richard Lehv.

Dear Mr. Sagastume: