[image from abc]
Last updated 6/21/07
A quick look at what’s happening with Ethiopia’s efforts to trademark its coffee names (aka Oxfam vs. Starbucks):
1. What’s the debate about? Well, the debate’s more or less ended now, since Starbucks finally negotiated with the Ethiopian government, and the two signed an agreement in June 2007.
But here’s what the debate WAS about: Starbucks put roadblocks on Ethiopia’s efforts to copyright its coffee names (Sidamo and Harrar) through the NCA, a big coffee org in the US. Thus, Oxfam launched a campaign 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.
2. What happened after Oxfam launched its campaign? As I mentioned, in June 2007, the Ethiopian government and Starbucks inked an agreement, effectively letting Oxfam declare victory for its campaign.
Still, the road wasn’t an easy one. At first, Starbucks denied it ever blocked the trademarking efforts, because technically, the mermaid worked through the National Coffee Association (NCA), which officially filed the papers to block the efforts. Considering the fact that the NCA exists to push the economic interests of its powerful companies like Starbucks — and especially considering that one Dub Hay, a VP at Starbucks, is the chair of the NCA’s Government Relations Committee — Starbucks is clearly implicated in the blocking effort.
Starbucks also argued that it thinks certification’s better than trademarking. Sez Oxfam: “the NCA and Starbucks should not dictate to Ethiopia how best to sell its products.”
Starbucks CEO Jim Donald even went to meet with the Ethiopian Prime Minister. Starbucks called that meeting a success; pretty much everyone else called it a breakdown. One Oxford professor wrote Starbucks might lose its green edge due to this issue.
Oxfam even , used one of Starbucks’ holiday promotions to push this trademark issue :) And on Dec. 16, activists participated in a Day of Action to inform Starbucks employees about the facts of the issue. I, for one, went on a bike safari!
In February 2007, Starbucks and the Ethiopian government put out a joint statement, stating that Starbucks will not block Ethiopia’s efforts. That said, Starbucks also didn’t say it would support Ethiopia’s efforts. In fact, Starbucks still claimed it’s A-OK for the mermaid to make $26 an lb off the coffee it pays Ethiopian coffee farmers 75 cents an lb for.
Then Starbucks started really negotiating with Ethiopia to resolve these issues, announcing in May 2007 that the two were set to sign a joint agreement. Watch the Democracy Now! coverage to get a sense of the debate at that time.
Finally, Starbucks came around to ink that June 2007 deal with Ethiopia. Here’s a basic timeline on the trademarking efforts starting in 2004.
3. What does Ethiopia want? The Ethiopian govt. clearly wants to own trademarks for Ethiopian coffees.
4. Has Ethiopia gotten ANY trademark approvals for its coffees? Yes, indeed! Ethiopia’s received a trademark for Yirgacheffe from the US, in fact. Here’s a review of what trademarks have been given by what country.
5. Okay — In question 2, you mentioned the whole certification (which Starbucks wanted) vs. trademarking (which Ethiopia wants) debate. What’s the diff, exactly? Well, don’t ask Starbucks CEO, Jim Donald; this guy told the Ethiopian prime minister that certification’s preferable to trademarking — then Jim admitted he couldn’t tell the difference between the two.
One guy who does get the difference is Douglas Holt, L’Oreal Professor of Marketing at the Said Business School at University of Oxford, who’s been writing very informative and passionate papers on this Ethiopian trademarking issue. Douglas says that certification’s used primarily to fend off copycats. However, Ethiopian coffee farmers’ problem is not copycats. Their problem is that they have v. little power in the global trade market. Considering the fact that Ethiopia’s not trying to fend off counterfeiters, but rather working to gain more negotiating power in the global market, certification doesn’t seem to be a viable route, says Douglas.
6. What about the argument that trademarking will only benefit the corrupt leaders of the Ethiopian government? That argument’s both off-base and misinformed. Find out more here.
7. But I heard that trademarking coffee names is illegal. No — this one’s probably one of the most absurd claims that Starbucks made. In fact, Starbucks itself has now backtracked on this claim, saying that their knowledge when they made this claim was “not accurate.”
I mean, Yirgacheffee, one of Ethiopia’s coffees, has already been trademarked by the USPTO. Ethiopia’s just trying to make the same happen for two other coffees — Sidamo and Harrar. So no, it’s not illegal, because if it were, the USPTO would’ve rejected the Yirgacheffe application too.
8. But I heard that trademarking will hurt Ethiopian farmers, and that’s why Starbucks is against trademarking. Actually, to file papers against trademarking, the complainant (in this case, Starbucks) has to argue that said trademark will hurt the company financially. Thus, the NCA / Starbucks had to, by law, argue that the Ethiopian trademarks, if awarded, will hurt Starbucks / other US coffee companies financially. So for Starbucks to argue that it opposes trademarking because it’s watching out for the economical benefit of Ethiopian coffee farmers (and not for the mermaid’s own benefit) is an odd argument indeed.
9. Why am I still confused, even after reading coverage on these issues? The mainstream media hasn’t been doing a good job of covering the issue directly. Here are some of the Qs I think that the MSM needs to address fully.
Hi Siel,
I’ve hear that Dean Cycon of Dean’s Beans wrote a pretty interesting letter about this (He was a trade lawyer in a past life). However, I haven’t been able to dig it up online. Perhaps you or one of your devoted readers knows where to find it?
Nice overview.
Comment by E — December 19, 2006 @ 9:06 am
I didn’t find a letter, but I found some radio commentary by Mr. Cycon.
You can listen to the broadcast via this link:
http://www.valleyfreeradio.org/2006/12/corporate-watchdog-4/
Comment by James — December 20, 2006 @ 9:50 am
I covered that NPR piece briefly here.
Comment by Siel — December 20, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
YES, STARBUCKS CARES
We have read the essay posted by Professor B. Holt on January 26th 2007, titled Is Starbucks “Coffee That Caresâ€. After doing so, we felt compelled to describe a very different Starbucks, completely opposite to the image portrayed in such document.
Our group consists of all the major Cooperatives, Millers and Exporters of Costa Rica. The following text was drafted by : the FENAC-CAFÉ R.L. (Federación Nacional de Cooperativas de Café, grouping all the major coffee Farmer Cooperatives in Costa Rica), the CNC (Cámara Nacional de Cafetaleros, grouping all the major coffee Millers of Costa Rica), the CNEC (Cámara Nacional de Exportadores de Café, grouping all the major coffee Exporters of Costa Rica), and the SCACR (Specialty Coffee Association of Costa Rica, a trade organization devoted to promotion of quality coffee in Costa Rica).
Costa Rica is a small country, but we pride ourselves in producing some of the best coffees in the world. Our local legislation (and culture) is also very advanced in terms of social and ecologic policies. Such strict policies make coffee growing/milling/exporting an expensive affair. Therefore Costa Rica has a very hard time competing with other mass producing nations.
The Starbucks WE KNOW was the first company to ever pay prices for coffee significantly above world market levels. This mode of buying started in the late 1990´s coming to the turn of the century. As far as we know there is no prior record of any company adopting this practice (for large volumes) in coffee history. Before Starbucks began paying such premiums, most of our good coffees were part of the “commodity basket†trading at price levels very close to lesser quality coffees. Even when world market prices hit the lowest levels in recent history, Starbuck stuck to their principles and paid almost twice as much for their coffee.
In those days Starbucks explained their concern for the wellbeing of coffee producers. They recognized the threat that low market prices represented to the sustainable production of good coffees. While their concern may have been in some ways self motivated (i.e. guaranteeing long term supply of the coffee they needed), their actions reflected a desire for partnership, working together with producers, helping them in these desperate times. We think this “everyone wins†mentality is much more productive than mere charity.
Already in 2001, Starbucks buying behavior had caused a revolution in our day-to-day trading. A two-tier market was born; the “normal market†and the “Starbucks quality marketâ€. The price difference between these two was very significant. This came to be known internally as the Starbucks effectâ€. It meant that every area reached by Starbucks became protected in a sort of price-bubble. Production in these “protected†areas is still stable or even rising to this day. On the other hand, the areas that they could not reach have shown dramatic production losses in the last few years, and may even face partial or total eradication of coffee plants.
During all this time, Starbucks has never attempted to monopolize the use of names relating to geographic regions or special production processes in Costa Rica. Starbucks has always looked at the intrinsic value of the coffee, how it tastes on the cup. It is based on samples and compliance to their CAFÉ PRACTICES program that Starbucks chooses their suppliers.
The Starbucks we know is not a cold self-serving multinational. Their name and green logo have become household images in Costa Rica. Not because Costa Ricans drink lattes. There are no Starbucks coffee houses operating in our country. Their name is known because people, government, and the coffee community in general recognize what they have meant for us during the last 7 years: a solid ethical partner, a defense against market forces, a standard for promotion of good growing practices, and a trampoline for promotion of our name in the market place .
We have come to know Starbuck’s executives very closely. We have seen their CEO Jim Donald having a simple lunch at the house of a small producer, sharing with the producer’s family and later attending large producer-group meetings, extending all sort of courtesies. We saw the birth of CAFÉ PRACTICES, a program that was the first of its kind, announced right here during a Sintercafe convention in San José. We also witnessed the opening of their farm-support center in San José, an office entirely devoted to facilitating the implementation of CAFÉ PRACTICES in Latin America.
YES, WE THINK STARBUCKS CARES. We have seen it with our own eyes. While we cannot refer to the specifics of the Ethiopian issue, we think it is unfair to simply ignore the track record and proper behavior of this company, consistent for so many years. It is wrong to form an opinion without looking at the entire picture. Starbuck’s actions through the years deserve that people pay attention to their arguments. We think they have earned such right for credibility. They have certainly walked the walk.
Costa Rica is a blessed coffee nation. It is a place where good quality, social consciousness and genuine care for nature (finally) meet. We have no doubt that this is still a reality thanks to Starbucks’ behavior during the last 7 years.
Comment by Gabriela Lobo — February 5, 2007 @ 9:45 am