In another development, the National Coffee Association of U.S.A. (NCA) responded to Oxford Professor Douglas Holt’s essay Is Starbucks “Coffee That Cares?” A copy of the letter addressed to Douglas Holt is sent to Coffee Politics from Robert F. Nelson, President & CEO, National Coffee Association.
To my knowledge, this is the first time the NCA joined the public discussion over the trademark dispute. This letter does not address the reasons why they opposed Ethiopia's trademark initiatives but we hope the NCA will soon come forth with firsthand information in the interest of the public's awareness. I am also curious to learn how the NCA can represent farmers' interests when opposing their trade strategies.
February 5, 2007
Douglas Holt
Oxford Said Business School
Park End Street
Oxford, OX1 1HP
United Kingdom
Email: doug.holt@sbs.ox.ac.uk
Dear Professor Holt:
I read with interest your recent post dated January 26, 2007. Correcting the factual errors and misleading inferences might add credibility to your paper. As I represent the National Coffee Association, my comments are limited to the references to the Association. It should be noted, however, that silence on what may be other inaccuracies in the paper should not be interpreted as support for issues and arguments raised by you.
Your paper states that “on the basis of this protest, the USPTO has denied registration on Sidamo.” The denial was based on US Law, not NCA’s letter of protest. In fact, if you go to the USPTO Web site you will be able to confirm that USPTO refused registration of this term on or about July 17, 2006. The letter of protest was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006, after the application was denied. In other words, the letter of protest was not a factor in the denial.
Likewise, a review of the USPTO Website demonstrates the fact that USPTO refused the application to trademark Harrar on or about October 15, 2005. Clearly, this refusal predated any consideration of a letter of protest which was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006. It is erroneous and misleading to state that “NCA exists to advocate the interests of big coffee marketers.” Likewise it is intellectually unsound to state that “big coffee marketers finance the organization and fill its board and committees.” In fact, the majority of our members are small and mid-sized businesses and the overwhelming majority of our dues income comes from small and mid-sized companies. Equally important is the fact that each member/Board member/committee member gets one vote regardless of their size and “big coffee marketers” as a group have a minority vote on the Board, as well as most committees.
You correctly point out the Dub Hay chairs NCA’s Government Affairs Committee. Understandably, you fail to indicate that the Ethiopian IP issue has never been discussed or on the agenda at any Government Affairs Committee meeting. The Government Affairs Committee focuses on legislative and regulatory issues; we do not consider IP issues, as they relate to Ethiopia’s current initiative, to fall under the umbrella of legislative and regulatory issues, but rather a matter of law. In other words, the Government Affairs Committee does not “handle trademark issues” as you state. Incidentally, NCA’s Government Affairs Committee does not set policy for the Association on any issue.
Ultimately, your paper infers that somehow NCA is acting on behalf of one of our members on this matter. This is not the case. In fact, as part of our legal compliance program, we adhere strictly to our written policy that prohibits the Association or any of its meetings from being used to resolve problems particular to a single member or a small, select group of members.
Our mission is clear that we represent the entire US industry, not one portion of it. More importantly, our core purpose is to champion the well being of the US industry within the context of the world coffee community. In other words, NCA positions are not developed in a vacuum, but with consideration of the entire value chain; after all, without sustainable success at the farm level our US based members have no business. In short, our core purpose ensures that we consider farmer interests and to state that “NCA’s mission ensures that it cannot represent farmer interests” is simply not true.
Sincerely,
[Signed]
Robert F. Nelson
To my knowledge, this is the first time the NCA joined the public discussion over the trademark dispute. This letter does not address the reasons why they opposed Ethiopia's trademark initiatives but we hope the NCA will soon come forth with firsthand information in the interest of the public's awareness. I am also curious to learn how the NCA can represent farmers' interests when opposing their trade strategies.
Full text of the NCA letter is posted below. If you are new, start from here.
----------------February 5, 2007
Douglas Holt
Oxford Said Business School
Park End Street
Oxford, OX1 1HP
United Kingdom
Email: doug.holt@sbs.ox.ac.uk
Dear Professor Holt:
I read with interest your recent post dated January 26, 2007. Correcting the factual errors and misleading inferences might add credibility to your paper. As I represent the National Coffee Association, my comments are limited to the references to the Association. It should be noted, however, that silence on what may be other inaccuracies in the paper should not be interpreted as support for issues and arguments raised by you.
Your paper states that “on the basis of this protest, the USPTO has denied registration on Sidamo.” The denial was based on US Law, not NCA’s letter of protest. In fact, if you go to the USPTO Web site you will be able to confirm that USPTO refused registration of this term on or about July 17, 2006. The letter of protest was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006, after the application was denied. In other words, the letter of protest was not a factor in the denial.
Likewise, a review of the USPTO Website demonstrates the fact that USPTO refused the application to trademark Harrar on or about October 15, 2005. Clearly, this refusal predated any consideration of a letter of protest which was not entered into the deliberative process until on or about August 17, 2006. It is erroneous and misleading to state that “NCA exists to advocate the interests of big coffee marketers.” Likewise it is intellectually unsound to state that “big coffee marketers finance the organization and fill its board and committees.” In fact, the majority of our members are small and mid-sized businesses and the overwhelming majority of our dues income comes from small and mid-sized companies. Equally important is the fact that each member/Board member/committee member gets one vote regardless of their size and “big coffee marketers” as a group have a minority vote on the Board, as well as most committees.
You correctly point out the Dub Hay chairs NCA’s Government Affairs Committee. Understandably, you fail to indicate that the Ethiopian IP issue has never been discussed or on the agenda at any Government Affairs Committee meeting. The Government Affairs Committee focuses on legislative and regulatory issues; we do not consider IP issues, as they relate to Ethiopia’s current initiative, to fall under the umbrella of legislative and regulatory issues, but rather a matter of law. In other words, the Government Affairs Committee does not “handle trademark issues” as you state. Incidentally, NCA’s Government Affairs Committee does not set policy for the Association on any issue.
Ultimately, your paper infers that somehow NCA is acting on behalf of one of our members on this matter. This is not the case. In fact, as part of our legal compliance program, we adhere strictly to our written policy that prohibits the Association or any of its meetings from being used to resolve problems particular to a single member or a small, select group of members.
Our mission is clear that we represent the entire US industry, not one portion of it. More importantly, our core purpose is to champion the well being of the US industry within the context of the world coffee community. In other words, NCA positions are not developed in a vacuum, but with consideration of the entire value chain; after all, without sustainable success at the farm level our US based members have no business. In short, our core purpose ensures that we consider farmer interests and to state that “NCA’s mission ensures that it cannot represent farmer interests” is simply not true.
Sincerely,
[Signed]
Robert F. Nelson
Comments
Post a Comment
Join the conversation