I’ve found the answer here: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/olia/globalip/pdf/gi_system.pdf

* For that matter, what’s the difference between a certification program and an appelation? Are they two different things, or two names for the same thing?

Same thing, AFAIK (I’m no attorney, but I’ve talked to a bunch of IP lawyers)

* Are there coffee growing communities / regions that have used trademarks? If so, what communities / regions are these? Have these efforts been successful or unsuccessful? Why or why not?

Nobody’s gotten a USPTO trademark AFAIK (other than Yirgacheffe now, of course), so there’s really no precedent.

* Are there coffee growing communities / regions that have used certification programs? If so, what communities / regions are these? Have these efforts been successful or unsuccessful? Why or why not?

Jamaican Blue Mountain. $30-90 per pound? I’d call that successful… and due to a combination of the appellation and effective marketing. Too bad the quality of the coffee ain’t that great. Also, Guatemala Antigua, and Hawaiian Kona.

* Do the specifics brought up by Ethiopia’s bid change the likelihood of the success of either methods?

There is some concern of a “domino effect.” The question ultimately has to do with prognostication. In theory, anyone could be right, and anyone could be wrong. Only history will tell. The unprecedented nature of this whole issue makes things very murky.

* What, if anything, do coffee companies like Starbucks and others have to gain, financially, from keeping Ethiopia from trademarking these names?

In a way, JBM (above) is successful. However, in a way, it’s been a failure: branding and marketing has resulted in an expensive, but relatively low-quality coffee bean (compared to other top-quality but cheaper coffees out there). It would be a concern if, rather than higher prices due to higher quality, prices were inflated artificially on the producers’ (or related governments’) side. Starbucks’ supposed “threat” to stop buying Ethiopian coffee could be a reality… and not just for Starbucks.
As much as Ethiopia wants to believe that their coffees are the best in the world, if the economic tide went a certain way, many if not all of the positive qualities of Ethiopian coffee could be replicated in other parts of the region, particularly Kenya and Rwanda.
But neither statements really answers your question. The fact is, even for an independent retailer like me, I don’t want to see progress in coffee (for everyone, ESPECIALLY the producers) derailed by a convoluted plan that has little assurance of success. That’s my motivation for studying this issue now (thanks for your coverage, by the way).

* How easy is it to start a certification program vs. to get a trademark? What are the costs involved in either effort? Is the certification route a relatively fast and easy way by which to get financial benefits of Ethiopian coffee farmers? How does this route compare to the trademarking route?

Trademarking would likely fatten the pockets of US attorneys acting on Ethiopia’s behalf. Certification would likely require the creation of new agencies and offices in Ethiopia to oversee the appellation (a.k.a., new jobs). As far as “financial benefits of [sic] Ethiopian coffee farmers,” that’s entirely up to how the Ethiopian government would choose (or choose not) to operate their programs, either way.

* Some orgs and companies have argued that coffee-growing regions should not and cannot be trademarked. But what about the fact that Yirgacheffe has already been granted a trademark? How is trademarking Harrar and Sidamo different?

Great question. Here’s my understanding: Yirgacheffe, Harrar, and Sidamo resemble each other today as coffee growing regions (i.e., “Sonoma Valley,” “Napa Valley,” etc.) The difference with Yirgacheffe is that something like 50 years ago, “Yirgacheffe” was established specifically AS a coffee-producing region. There was no “Yirgacheffe” before this time. That’s a distinction. To be clear, this is 2nd or 3rd hand information that I’ve heard.

* Whether or not trademarking might be beneficial, the Ethiopian government, and many Ethiopian farmers, have come out in favor of the trademarking effort. With that in mind, what is the role of western companies and orgs in influencing Ethiopia and Ethiopian farmers’ efforts? Is it okay for western companies and orgs, whether the NCA, the SCAA, or Starbucks itself, to oppose the trademark effort strictly on the contention that trademarking will not be financially viable for Ethiopia in their opinion? Or is that contention a paternalistic stance?

I’ve been frustrated with this part of Ethiopia’s claims. The stance is irrelevant. The USPTO acts on its own. Yes, the NCA apparently submitted a letter to “protest” the trademark applications. However, it is the USPTO that acts on its own.
Tangentially, Starbucks was awarded the trademark “STARBUCKS DOUBLESHOT.” Nobody submitted a protest. If someone had, they would have alerted the examining attorney to their oversight, and that “doubleshot” is a generic term for a double shot of espresso. Starbucks would have been required to add: “NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “DOUBLESHOT” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN.” You can’t fault people for submitting a protest. The protest alone doesn’t hurt a trademark application, unless the protest holds some merit.

* In conjunction with the above, shouldn’t we consider the fact that both Oxfam and Light Years IP — orgs who support, and are advising, the trademarking effort — are also orgs funded largely by the west? Do we need to consider the possibility that these org’s efforts may be a paternalistic effort too?

*shrug* Haven’t thought about it, but interesting thought.

* Regardless of who may or may not be taking a paternalistic stance in relation to Ethiopia, how do we deal with a situation where most of the people speaking on either side of this issue are not Ethiopians themselves (even though, clearly, some Ethiopians have come out on Oxfam’s side)?

*shrug* Again, another interesting thought.

Mimi — Thanks for the link! I’ll definitely use it in future posts :)

Arondo — I totally agree that Ethiopia produces some of the finest coffee in the world :) I am, however, also quite sure that both Kona and Jamaican Blue Mountain are certification names, not trademarks — meaning that these cases could be seen more as an impetus for certifying Sidamo and Harrar (as Starbucks recommends) than for trademarking the names (as Ethiopia wants). That’s not to say that trademarking’s not the way to go — It’s just that these examples, at the moment, don’t seem to provide strong support for the trademarking route.

How can one justify selling a cup of coffee for $3.00, but the farmer who toiled day and night gets only 1 cent?

Just go to http://www.EthioPortal.com and in the search area, use:

Keyword “Starbucks”
Section: “News” from the drop down menu

Then click on “Search”. A few links will be displayed. Click on the third “View” link and read the one that says how much Starbucks executives are paid.

Now will you go again to Starbucks and buy and product??? If you do, then, would you sleep with a good conscious at night???

Please tell all your friends that this kind of greedy behaviour will not be tolerated in the 21st century. There might be a time in the future (may be in the year 2080, Americans will immigrate to Africa. Our globe is getting smaller and smaller.

Cheers,

Also, are these brands currently available under these terms? If so, from an economic perspective, a trademark would only alter (and clarify) the distribution of any excess gains over “Ethiopian coffee.”

Interesting story - in particular, the Starbucks angle.

BTW, “objectivity-on-the-cheap” from the MSM has allowed the Bush Administration to get away with far more than sound journalism would.