I have never heard of ‘authorization by extension’ and you will find no such mention of this term anywhere in Amazon’s guidelines regarding use of brand names.This sounds like something your supplier made up to keep you purchasing from them.
@Ali are the Gildan blanks supplied directly by Printful? 
I wonder if somehow this is what Gildan is really mad about.
No matter what, I agree with @Neil and @HobbesIsMyTiger earlier that “authorization by extension” is actually just supply chain documentation for authenticity purposes, not actually authorization for IP use.
@Ali can you please update on the status of your most recent appeal? And to clarify, is it this one?
We were also not familiar with this term. An Amazon agent called our authorization “authorization by extension” while we were on call with them, so we went with it. Our Supplier never mentioned it.
Hi @HobbesIsMyTiger , We have written another POA. Can you please check? We tried to be as clear and short as possible.
[mod edit: reformatted for visibility and ease of reading]
Amazon does not like screen shots at all, ever.
Not sure Amazon asked or wants this. This can cause confusion on Amazon’s part when you supply documents that are not requested
@papy Yes, the Gildan blanks were supplied directly by Printful. The flagging was never done by Gildan, according to our knowledge. The Seller notification notes “Potential IP violation” and, we believe, is put in place by Amazon.
Also, I agree with @Neil and maintak. We have emailed Gildan and are now awaiting their response as Printful is not being as helpful as we had hoped.
Yes, @papy. It is that one. We have written another POA. and listed it here
The first issue I see here is your POA does not have a clear direction.
On one hand you’re acknowledging the issue and you’re saying you were NOT authorized and won’t do it again. On the other hand you’re providing documentation trying to prove you were authorized.
Did you receive authorization directly from Gildan (It must be on Gildan letterhead and be signed by someone who works for Gildan who’s authorized to do so)? If so, your POA should be along the lines of “we have received the appropriate authorization and documentation.” And you should only be attaching the new, valid, LOA.
If you did not receive authorization directly from Gildan, all your documentation is invalid and should not be part of the appeal. (If your strategy is to admit you’re wrong, there’s no need to attach proof of how or why you were wrong).
Also regarding your last 2 attachments. Were these specifically requested by Amazon? I’ve never seen an IP related suspension that asks for a bank letter and statement. Only attach things that requested, if you clutter up an appeal it’s more likely to be rejected. As far as I can tell from your suspension notice identity verification is not an issue and they did not ask for bank statements.
Factual bullet points. Amazon does not care about your motivations. The more fluff you add, the less likely it is that an overworked, English-as-a-second-language Amazon employee will bother to finish reading your appeal.
None of this was requested. Adding your own sections to a POA will result in the rejection of your POA. As I said in my original advice:
I’ve worked many of these suspensions. You haven’t found the issue or given a real plan to resolve it. That leaves your POA ineffective.
In the past I’ve seen issues with the use of the brand of shirt in this type of “modified” product. Several sellers were selling team jerseys but using the brand of the shirt in the title. That was a no-no.
Until you find the specific issue Amazon found I don’t see you getting reinstated.
@oneida_books You are correct. But we have not used the word Gildan anywhere in our listings.
The Titles of our listings were;
**Listing Title**
(Our Brand Name) Sweatshirt | JDM Car Sweatshirt | Anime clothing |(Our Brand Name) Anime Streetwear Clothing | Unisex | Breathable | Car Lover
**Listing Description:**
Only good vibes.
Designed for breathable warmth and comfort. Stay cool in the summer, or warm in the winter. A sturdy and warm sweatshirt bound to keep you warm in the colder months. Pre-shrunk, classic fit sweater that's made with air-jet spun yarn for a soft feel.
NOTES
Tracking numbers are available once the item arrives in the destination country.
Please refer to our sizing chart and double-check your selection before placing your order.
* 50% cotton, 50% polyester
* Fabric weight: 8 oz/yd² (271 g/m²)
* Yarn diameter: 20 singles
* Soft fleece fabric inside and outside
* Air-jet spun yarn for reduced piling
* Regular fit
* Metal zipper
* Front pouch pockets
* Unlined hood with color-matched drawcord
* Overlapped fabric across zipper
* Double-needle stitching at shoulders, armholes, neck, waistband, and cuffs
* Safety Green: Compliant with ANSI/ISEA 107
I have been able to get hold of the Title and description we used, but unfortunately, I was not able to get the mockup images from our partner as amazon deleted all of the content there.
@GGX and papy Thank you for your suggestions. I will rewrite the POA. I appreciate your help!
@Ali has any of the latest responses from Amazon included the verbiage, “We may no longer respond to emails on this issue,” or something to that effect?
They typically only give people so many tries before basically ignoring them.
First - the authorization doesn’t matter when you get it from the printing company.
Second - you shouldn’t even need it if you are printing on the product and changing it.
So IF you are 100% certain that you haven’t used “Gildan” anywhere (and I suspect you haven’t, thus the use of “potential”) then I would go at this as “in error.”
Possibly Amazon is just going after sellers using their shirt to print on … which is not an IP violation. In your case you can brand the finished product with a different brand and never refer to the “Gildan” brand at all because you have modified the product into a somewhat different product.
It’s been years ago when I went through this with a client who sold Jerseys made on “Nike” shirts. I had to get him to cover the logo on the shirt images and remove all mention of “Nike” from the product data. However in the end he was reinstated.
@RandomUsername Well, They have not said that. However, a Rep told us that our account cannot be reinstated at this time on the Amazon forums.
They’re not really saying anything in that post, other than you need to appeal with an acceptable POA.
I don’t know how much power the forum mods have with “escalations,” but if you have not submitted an acceptable POA there’s nothing to escalate until you have.
@oneida_books We did not use the word Gildan anywhere. We have repeatedly told Amazon that we are selling these products under our separate brand in our POA. Can you please tell us how you worded that POA as best as you can remember? I am rewriting the one I sent previously but I am still not sure what to point out as our mistake.
I’ve followed your travails on this front ever since I first noticed your mention of it in the NSFE on 31July2023 (using a different Forum Handle than you’re using now).
I suspect that I may have the inkling of a notion as to why Amazon is balking over your attempts to correct this situation favorably, based upon the fact that your fellow countrymen who do not ascribe to Western Societies norms in the conduction of business - which, to me, currently, would not appear to be the case in your particular situation - have SO tarred all of y’all with a broad brush.
Sorry, but I can’t. Every case is different and I write them specific to the details I find.
Until you determine that I don’t see your PoA working.
Maybe see if Account Health can give you a hint. Sometimes they can help some if you show what you have investigated already.
@Ali any luck with this?
This has not been my experience. Every interaction I have had with Account Health has shown they are as siloed as Seller Support.