CEASE & DESIST

We're being told to shut up about this (again)

We were NOT going to post anymore updates on the litigation until there was more information to be shared, but seeing as how we've just received another CEASE & DESIST from the opposing counsel, we figured, why not. Opposing counsel is threatening us (again) with defamation if we do not take down all of our social media posts and this website.

She is claiming we are "harassing Vieira's Bakery and their customers while causing significant economic harm".

We have absolutely no contact with any of Vieira's Bakery's customers, we have not named any of them, nor do we associate with anyone at Vieira's Bakery. Why would their customers feel 'harassed' by us expressing our personal experiences and opinions in this litigation?

Apparently, Vieira's Bakery and Melissa Calrow are entitled to economic advantage, but we're not. Where was this energy when Vieira's Bakery was putting 6 SKUs into the infringed bag and selling it across the country? Did they stop and think about the economic disadvantages they were creating for us by taking our original creation, something unique and distinctive and passing it off as their own idea?

We're over here wondering where our right to economic advantage and fair competition was when Vieira's Bakery decided to infringe on our federally protected burlap bag design. Where was our right to economic advantage and all that other nonsense being sprouted in opposing counsel's letter when the infringing bag was sold into MAJOR retailers across the country? Where was our right to "reasonable and protectable expectation of economic benefit in the form of existing and potential customers and personal careers" when Vieira's Bakery didn't clearly convey at the settlement conference that the infringing bag was being discontinued and they were putting out a 'new' replacement bag in it's place and that it was going to be sold in the retail banners of one of the largest co-ops in the Northeast? Where was our right to fair competition when Vieira's Bakery utilized their longstanding relationships in this industry to block us out of the marketplace by knocking off our federally protected burlap bag design? Also, when is expressing your opinions and personal thoughts, sharing updates, and posting and disseminating content that is already available publicly online considered malicious? Where are the supposed lies we are making up to hurt anyone?

Though our attorneys have to issue a 'formal' response to the cease and desist, we figured we'd formulate our own just because. So here it goes!

1. Failure to File a Defamation Claim

The Court has already provided Vieira’s Bakery Inc. and MRS. Calrow with the opportunity to file a defamation claim by a specific deadline. In our opinion, this failure further underscores that the allegations in this letter are baseless and intended to intimidate rather than resolve.

Please STOP wasting everyone's time! Like enough is enough.

2. Truth as a Defense

The statements made here and on our social media are factual or constitute protected opinions based on the evidence in the ongoing litigation. Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Her letter fails to refute the veracity of the statements cited.

3. No Evidence of Malice or Harm

For a statement to qualify as defamatory, it must be false, made with actual malice and result in measurable harm.

Our posts don't rise to this standard, particularly because they address matters central to the ongoing litigation and involve public concerns, such as intellectual property theft and unethical business practices.

Like we've already stated: FEDERAL TRADEMARK LAWSUITS ARE PUBLIC INFORMATION.

4. No Prohibition on Commentary

We have and will always have in the United States of America, a First Amendment right to discuss matters of public concern, including those related to this litigation. This speech is NOT prohibited by law, and trying to silence these discussions constitutes a violation of our constitutional rights.

5. Irrelevance of Alleged Harms

The alleged financial harm, loss of goodwill, and interference with prospective economic advantage claimed by Vieira's Bakery lacks substantiation.

As we've stated before, any 'reputational' damage experienced by Vieira’s Bakery or MRS. Calrow is a direct result of their own actions, as documented in the litigation.

They had TWO YEARS to resolve this amicably. They refused.

In fact, how can we forget- one of their previous attorneys told us to 'get back to baking' as a response to our second cease and desist letter asking Vieira's Bakery to STOP using the knockoff bag????

6. Posts Within the Bounds of Fair Commentary

The cited statements, including the “Blame Melissa Calrow” post, are opinions and summaries of our experiences and our own findings during the course of this litigation.

Commentary on litigation matters is legally permissible.

7. No Invasion of Privacy

While the cease and desist makes reference to an image of MRS. Calrow’s family and 'minors', the image is publicly available and not used in a manner that violates privacy laws. Also, the 'minors' are adults. This photo is literally set to PUBLIC as in EVERYONE on the internet can see it.

Moreover, any reference to MRS. Calrow is directly relevant to the matters in this litigation.

Miss Legal Eagle came onto OUR public social media page and left a PUBLIC comment trolling. It's not our fault she connected her username to publicly available email addresses that led us to unveil her identity.

8. Baseless Claims of Profiteering

We have not made ONE DIME nor have we derived any commercial benefit from discussing litigation. The posts serve to provide transparency about the litigation.

To even make this asinine claim when we are paying the cost of a car every other month in legal fees is absolutely DISGUSTING.

In fact, opposing counsel, in our opinion, more than likely knows we are paying significant costs for this litigation.

We are up to SIX FIGURES in legal fees while she continues to waste everyone's time with these meaningless letters.

There are no advertisements, affiliate links, or any monetizing of our social media platforms whatsoever. We don't even do paid partnerships or paid collaborations.

Everything we post is posted for FREE and we do not get paid!

We don't create content for money.

This is what a typical legal bill looks like for us, but opposing counsel wants to create this false narrative that we are making bank on this litigation.

We will not remove any posts or refrain from making truthful statements or expressing constitutionally protected opinions about this litigation.

We will not be silenced because of unsupported threats. Vieira's Bakery has already done their worse to us, damaged our business, hurt our future in this industry, and done enough damage to last a lifetime. We will not be silent about it.

Cease and desist all you want.

WE WANT ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY, AND JUSTICE!

We've got all the receipts and when we're allowed... we'll post them. Opposing counsel wants us to give up our constitutional right to freedom of speech