[image from abc. For those new to the Ethiopia coffee trademark issue, start here]
The debate over Ethiopian coffee names — and who owns these names — has been going on for quite a while. But the more public fight’s now officially happening. Oxfam wants you to help pressure Starbucks to let Ethiopia copyright its coffee names — a move that would potentially increase income for Ethiopia’s coffee industry by about $88 million a year.
Basically, Ethiopia wants to own the names of some of their coffees — Sidamo and Harrar — to aid with branding and such.
But Starbucks has been opposing this move — despite the fact that Starbucks claims to be all about supporting Ethiopian coffee farmers.
Sez Oxfam spokeswoman Jo Leadbetter: “We have heard from a number of sources that actually Starbucks was involved in alerting the US coffee association to block these applications.”
So: Oxfam now wants Starbucks to sign a voluntary licensing agreement saying Ethiopia owns the rights to the names.
How you can help: Fax a letter to Starbucks CEO Jim Donald, asking Starbucks to sign this agreement. To get more involved, check out Oxfam’s action page.
To get an idea of what happened with the copyright process that led to this Oxfam action, check out this article from the Guardian UK.
Update, 10/27/06: Starbucks responds twice, Oxfam responds back.
October 27th, 2006 at 5:35 am
I would challenge if infact trademarking names is a viable increase in profits… and if it would end up in the correct hands. With Starbucks C.A.F.E. practices it helps farmers through loans to increase their farm, it also helps the workers by providing them essential services such as medical clinics. In the past there have been other places that Starbucks buys from that wanted to do this. The agreement was made to not trademark, and it proved to be a wise move for the growing region. The place I speak of is Guatemala Antigua as an example. Realistically Starbucks is not being an evil corporation, they are looking more at the needs of the farmers then that of the government.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:31 am
I have to confess that I think this campaign is misguided. I am all for helping development in Africa and improving the payment that goes to coffee farmers is obviously part of that. But I feel this is a manipulation of intellectual property law. Trademarks are for brand names; these are not brand names but generic words to describe varieties of coffee that can in fact be grown anywhere, not just Ethiopia. Should the Ugandans (hypothetically) pay Ethiopia royalties if they grow these coffee varieties? I don’t think the fact that the coffee evolved in Ethiopia is a strong enough argument. Of course I question Starbucks’ motives but it doesn’t mean I support the trademark application or Oxfam’s campaign. (Though Oxfam does do a lot of good work).
October 27th, 2006 at 11:14 am
This whole thing really just goes to highlight what a travesty “trademarking” and “intellectual property” have become.
I’m actually with Starbucks on this one - provided the names become part of the public domain.
October 27th, 2006 at 11:50 am
The Krow — I think where you and I differ, mainly, is WHO should be making these decisions for improving the livelihoods of Ethiopian farmers. Both the Ethiopian farmers and the Ethiopian govt. have come out and said that this trademark thing is the path that they want to take and that they believe this will best serve their interests.
Even if Starbucks’ efforts WERE well meaning, it’s very paternalistic of them to say that Ethiopians should forget what THEY want to do and do what Starbucks thinks they should do. And to add insult to injury, Starbucks then sez that Ethiopia should do this by signing an agreement with Starbucks. Talk about controlling!
Caitlin and Robert — I do agree that intellectual property laws have taken some bizzarre routes of late. However, clearly, many big corps have and can manipulate these laws to fatten their bottom lines without any public fanfare — and now, they’re preventing less-wealthy parties from trying to do the same.
Maybe in an ideal world, we could revise these laws altogether. But as it is, it seems odd to me to allow for ONLY powerful parties to benefit from these laws.
I’d like to point out, for ex, that in 2004, Starbucks filed a trademark application with the word “Sidamo” to the USPTO. Now since Starbucks could keep that on the DL, no one came out at that point to say there was anything wrong with trying to trademark Sidamo.
But when Ethiopia applied to trademark “Sidamo” a year later — Starbucks raised objections.
Starbucks clearly doesn’t have a problem with trademarking Sidamo — as long as its Starbucks who owns the trademark.
We can, I suppose, just bemoan the trademark laws. Or we can try to at least make those trademark laws more equitable.
October 27th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I thought the three names were the regions where the coffee was grown, not the “variety” of coffee. Is that right, Siel? If that’s the case, then Caitlin is quite mistaken. And I heartily agree with the lack of parity regarding intellectual property. Starbucks is clearly being a bully…and, worse, a patronizing, condescending bully.
October 27th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
So what do other people in the coffee industry think? Pura Vida, Dean’s Beans, Thanksgiving, Intelligensia, TransFair USA, Peets, Green Mountain? Starbucks never appled to trademark “Sidamo.” Starbucks wanted to trademark “Sundried Shirkina” which was one of their Black Apron Exclusives. Of course the Ethiopia coffee farmers should get a fair price, but I’m not sure trusting the Ethiopia government is the best thing. Doesn’t the Ethiopian government only allow coffee producers to sell their coffee via the auction system which benefits the government more than the producer?
I think I need more information than just what the Ethiopian governement is supplying. What is best for the coffee farmers?
October 28th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
I think Starbucks does care about the Ethiopian coffee farmers, as manifested by them paying above-average prices and other initiatives. It is in their best interest to take care of the farmers even as the company pursuits profits (they are a publicly-owned corporation, after all). I would be inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt in this instance, and not immediately and reflexively bash them as the “bad guys”.
October 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Ethiopia is a country that has allowed genocide to take place, not to mention many other atrocities. Starbucks, on the other hand, is a corporate giant that has yet to show anything but lip service regarding the support of fair trade, organics, etc. In fact, they were recently exposed for using rBGH milk while misleading customers. “Despite over five years of grassroots pressure, Starbucks continues to serve milk from cows that are injected with genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone, also known as rBGH or rBST. Virtually every industrial country, except for the United States, has banned the sale of rBGH milk. Milk produced from cows injected with rBGH poses serious dangers to human health and the general welfare to dairy cows.” http://www.nutritionresearchcenter.org/healthupdate/2006/10/starbucks-using-milk-with-growth.html
At the last stop, I couldn’t get a cup of organic coffee at the nearest Starbucks. Are they greenwashers? Looks like it.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:29 pm
If this goes through, and the Government of Ethiopia Trademarks origin names, what’s to stop them from licensing the names of origins to other countries?
In other words, how will we know that bag of “Sidamo” we just bought is not, in fact, Vietnamese Robusta?
Oppose, oppose, oppose. Trademarking Ethiopian origin names could sink growers in that country for good.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:45 pm
Geographic Indications for the Origin of Coffee
The Specialty Coffee Association of America’s Perspective on Registration of Geographical
Indications of Origin and Recent Efforts by Ethiopia to Trademark the Names of Coffee
Growing Regions
CONTACT: Mike Ferguson, Chief of Staff
Specialty coffee does not come from just anywhere. Our ability to identify,
with ever-increasing specificity, the source of coffee we import, roast, and
brew is a hallmark of the specialty coffee industry. This, as much as any
quality variable, is one of the many things that distinguish specialty coffee
from coffee that is something less. Specialty coffee is not anonymous. Even
when blended, the origins are often identified, and consumers have come to
associate meaning and expectations with the names of coffee lands, coffee
regions, coffee farms, and even coffee plants. All coffee has a story but the
specialty coffee industry has stories worth telling. And while each story
culminates in the experience of the cup, they all begin where the coffee was
born. The names of these birthplaces of coffee have value, and should be
properly protected.
Geographical Indications
identify a good as originating
in the territory, region, or
locality where a given quality,
reputation or other
characteristic of the good is
essentially attributable to its
geographic origin, such as
“Florida oranges.â€
One hundred years ago the U.S. government recognized the value in a name
when it became illegal, as part of the Food and Drug Purity Act of 1906, to
“misbrand†a product as being from somewhere it wasn’t. At the time the
law was written, mislabeling of coffees as originating from Java, in
particular, was epidemic. More Java was sold to consumers than was ever
grown and exported from that region of the world. This contributed to the
word “Java†becoming one of the many synonyms for coffee. When a brand
is so ubiquitous that it becomes generic, it is no longer a brand.
To protect the “brands†that are the origins of coffee, some coffee
producing regions have over time sought international protection for
proper use of recognized regional and geographic coffee areas, also known
as Geographic Indications. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office, “Geographical Indications serve the same functions as trademarks,
because like trademarks they are source identifiers, guarantees of quality,
and are valuable business interests.â€
Geographical terms can be protected as certification marks. A geographical
term may be used, either alone or as a portion of a composite mark, to
certify that good originate in a particular geographical region. There is a
prohibition in U.S. trademark law against registration of names that are
primarily geographically descriptive, but The U.S. Trademark Act makes an
exception to this prohibition for indications of regional origin. Therefore,
a geographical name may be registered as a certification mark even though it
may not qualify as a trademark.
The U.S. Trademark Act
differentiates certification
marks from trademarks.
Certification marks are
source-identifying in that
they indicate the nature and
quality of the goods and
affirm that these goods have
met certain defined
standards.
Examples of origin
certification marks in the
coffee industry are:
“100% Colombianâ€
“100% Konaâ€
“Jamaican Blue Mountainâ€
“Genuine Antiguaâ€
Application for a certification
mark must be made by a
government or other official
organization within the
producing country which will
own and control use of the
mark by others. This control
consists of taking steps to
ensure the mark is applied
only to coffee that meets the
specified requirements that
the certifier/owner has
established.
A trademark or certification mark registration does not necessarily prevent
someone from using the term to fairly describe where their product
originated if it is the same as those identified in the registration. Such use
may be considered a “fair use†of descriptive terms.
Ethiopia
In Ethiopia there are a number of terms customarily used by the coffee
trade based on the various districts where the coffee is grown, such as
Harrar (or Harar), Sidamo, Limu, Yirgacheffe (or Yrga Cheffe), Kaffa,
Gimbi (or Lekempti), and Djimmah. For the past 100 years both coffee
exporters and roasters have used these words on their bags and packages to
connote the districts in Ethiopia where the coffees originated, as many of
these coffees show distinct differences in their flavor profiles. Harrar,
Sidamo, Yirgacheffe and Limu have become more widely known to
consumers in the last 20 years, largely due to the growth of the specialty
coffee industry.
In 2005, the Ethiopian government initiated a program to “register
trademarks for Harrar, Yirgacheffe, and Sidamo in 40 countries - and
eventually four other well-known Ethiopian fine coffees with good
reputations.†According to Light Years IP, an organization assisting the
Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) with this project:
The trademark program will be followed by a licensing
initiative – the EIPO and other ministries will be trained
to negotiate with international importers to recognize
Ethiopian brand ownership of its high quality coffees.
Control of the name brand use through licenses will
allow Ethiopia to play a significant role in determining
export prices for its fine coffees more relevant to the
high world market prices.
In pursuing this trademarking strategy in the United States, the Ethiopian
government ran into several challenges, including the U.S. Trademark
Office denying registration of “Harrar†as a word mark. The Trademark
Office stated:
It appears that the term “Harrar†indicates the generic
name for a blend of coffee that is grown in the Harrar or
Harar region of Ethiopia. Accordingly, registration is
refused under Section 2(e) (1) of the Trademark Act.
Registration is refused because the proposed mark is
merely descriptive of applicant’s goods. Applicant’s claim
of acquired distinctiveness is insufficient to overcome
the refusal.
The examining attorney’s statement is consistent with U.S. trademark law as
well as the International Trade Agreement on Intellectual Property Right
(TRIPS). The World Trade Organization recommends using “certification
marks†for the protection of geographic indications of origin as a means of
protecting the intellectual property rights of agricultural producers. This is
also the position adopted by SCAA.
Ethiopia encountered another challenge when SCAA objected to the U.S.
Trademark Office’s pending registration of a word mark for “Yirgacheffe.â€
Apparently, the Yirgacheffe examining attorney had not concluded the word
“Yirgacheffe†was generic and merely descriptive, which had been the case
with the “Harrar†examining attorney. In order to correct what appeared to
be a research error by the Yirgacheffe examining attorney regarding the
meaning and use of the word “Yirgacheffe,†SCAA filed a permitted Letter
of Protest with the Trademark Office, citing evidence that demonstrated the
term “Yirgacheffe†is used and understood by the relevant industry and the
general public as the name of a type of coffee from a district in Ethiopia.
SCAA requested the application be given further review, and the mark be
refused as generic under the appropriate sections of the Trademark Act, as
had been done in the case of “Harrar.â€
The matter is now under review by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
and the issue is presumed to be under advisement. SCAA’s board of
directors did consider the further corrective action of filing a Notice of
Opposition regarding the “Yirgacheffe†trademark application, and in
doing so requested an extension of time to review the matter before
proceeding with an Opposition. The filing of a first extension of time
generated a great deal of discussion within the coffee industry, with people
taking both sides of the issue without fully understanding either the facts or
the applicable trademark law. It also led to a meeting between a
representative of the Ethiopian Government, Senior Second Secretary for
Trade and Investment – Fitsum Hailu, and SCAA board President Rob
Stephen at the Ethiopian embassy in Washington, DC. Although the
meeting helped to clarify the issues, the Ethiopian government remained
convinced that they are proceeding correctly in registering their district
names as trademarks rather than certification marks.
During their review of the issues, SCAA’s board consulted with its
International Relations Council and SCAA’s legal Counsel, Stuart Adelson.
Although most agreed that Ethiopia would be better served by certification
marks, the board decided not to file a formal opposition.
Coffee’s Geographic Indicators, the names of the places that coffee is
grown, have the power to invoke expectations and affect consumer behavior.
This power should be properly protected and enhance the participation of
producers in the marketplace. The SCAA believes that this is best
accomplished through certification marks. The SCAA will continue to assist
producer governments and organizations in developing robust certification
programs by teaching producers how the consumer marketplace defines and
rewards quality, facilitating the creation of official coffee appellation
systems, and guiding origin representatives through the process of properly
attaining and enforcing their certification marks within the United States.
November 1st, 2006 at 10:12 am
Sorry unclear - the preceding was a statement released by the SCAA wrt origin name trademarking in Ethiopia. I agree that it seems some sort of certification would be a better route.
November 20th, 2006 at 10:45 am
The weird thing about that last bit is that the SCAA never actually filed a protest to Yirgacheffe. That trademark has been approved/registered by the USPTO.
I will try to find and see if I can post the EIPO’s response to the SCAA statement…
December 7th, 2006 at 2:24 am
Who decides what is best for Ethiopia? Starbucks? Is it not bad enough that a sovereign nation has to beg a coffee company to let it claim its own IP [on behalf of its farmers]?
Here is an Ethiopian opinion on the matter…
December 8th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
Hey TM — Thanks for the link :) I too am upset that US companies think it’s okay to dicatate what’s “best” for Ethiopia. More here.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
Starbucks has always had a commitment to the coffee growers and the regions they live in. The company focuses a lot of energy on developing strong relationships with its growers where they are paid an above market price for their coffee. For a company of its size, Starbucks has an amazing commitment to this world and the people in it. Try to find another large company that puts so much back into the world.
March 12th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
For those of you who side with the corporate interests of Stabucks on this matter, perhaps first you should consider that the names Sidamo and Harrar are the names of a province in the southern part of Ethiopia and an ancient city, respectively. For centuries, Harar has been a major commercial center, linked by the trade routes with the rest of Ethiopia, the entire Horn of Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and, through its ports, to the outside world. Harrar has been included in the World Heritage List in 2004 by UNESCO in recognition of its cultural heritage.
So how can starbucks own the name of a city and a region. Can you fathom Starbucks owning the name New York City or New England??? Tha appropriation of these names is not a matter of intellectual property rights but rather a matter of corportate arrogance and lack of respect for Ethiopian culture.