The negotiation between Starbucks and Ethiopia’s attorneys is continuing though at a slower pace. Starbucks is represented by its external lawyers – not by the company’s in house consul. That, in part, explains the reasons for their feet dragging, I think.
Not many details are available from either side at the moment. It seems as though confidentiality is one of the preconditions for the negotiation. From the information I was able to gather, however, the outcome of the negotiation might be something different from what has been at the center of the public dispute.
The two sides are apparently playing a give-take game. Starbucks is willing to recognize Ethiopia’s common Trade Mark rights but does not want to support its rights to administrative Trademark rights. Meaning, the company would not support Ethiopia’s application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the marks, Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe.
It looks like Ethiopia’s side is prepared to accept that compromise.
While Starbucks’ submission to recognizing Ethiopia’s ownership of the coffee marks represents a change in position, Ethiopia’s acceptance of the company’s offer raises a red flag.
Reportedly, the logic behind Ethiopia’s position is that as long as the practical effect of the common law rights are the same as the administrative Trademark rights, Ethiopia will be able to get what she has been after. Let’s hope so.
Of course, if the agreement, which is due to be signed any time soon, provides a commitment to jointly promote the brands for as long as it takes, Ethiopia will benefit out of it in the long run. An increase in demand translates into increase in prices, assuming all other factors remain the same.
Starbucks has not made concessions in the real sense of the word. What’s even sad is the fact that the company has once again failed to keep its words.
In their attempts to soothe public tensions, company executives made several promises to the Ethiopian coffee farmers. During their visits to the country early this year, they promised (here) to double purchases and establish farmer support centers to improve and maintain the quality of coffee produced in the region. They have now changed their minds and decided to build the support centers in Rwanda – not in Ethiopia.
Many believe this is Starbucks’ punishment of Ethiopia for standing up to the multi-national coffee giant. I don't disagree with this assertion. Nonetheless, I also think that representatives of the Ethiopian government should also be held accountable for not following through for the realization of Starbucks' publicly announced promise to help the farmers. Despite their repeated meetings with Howard Schultz, the government representatives have not raised the issue even once, it was learnt.
The public dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks will sooner or latter be declared resolved once the parties sign the “agreement”. We can only hope there would not be any more devils in the details.
Not many details are available from either side at the moment. It seems as though confidentiality is one of the preconditions for the negotiation. From the information I was able to gather, however, the outcome of the negotiation might be something different from what has been at the center of the public dispute.
The two sides are apparently playing a give-take game. Starbucks is willing to recognize Ethiopia’s common Trade Mark rights but does not want to support its rights to administrative Trademark rights. Meaning, the company would not support Ethiopia’s application at the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register the marks, Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe.
It looks like Ethiopia’s side is prepared to accept that compromise.
While Starbucks’ submission to recognizing Ethiopia’s ownership of the coffee marks represents a change in position, Ethiopia’s acceptance of the company’s offer raises a red flag.
Reportedly, the logic behind Ethiopia’s position is that as long as the practical effect of the common law rights are the same as the administrative Trademark rights, Ethiopia will be able to get what she has been after. Let’s hope so.
Of course, if the agreement, which is due to be signed any time soon, provides a commitment to jointly promote the brands for as long as it takes, Ethiopia will benefit out of it in the long run. An increase in demand translates into increase in prices, assuming all other factors remain the same.
Starbucks has not made concessions in the real sense of the word. What’s even sad is the fact that the company has once again failed to keep its words.
In their attempts to soothe public tensions, company executives made several promises to the Ethiopian coffee farmers. During their visits to the country early this year, they promised (here) to double purchases and establish farmer support centers to improve and maintain the quality of coffee produced in the region. They have now changed their minds and decided to build the support centers in Rwanda – not in Ethiopia.
Many believe this is Starbucks’ punishment of Ethiopia for standing up to the multi-national coffee giant. I don't disagree with this assertion. Nonetheless, I also think that representatives of the Ethiopian government should also be held accountable for not following through for the realization of Starbucks' publicly announced promise to help the farmers. Despite their repeated meetings with Howard Schultz, the government representatives have not raised the issue even once, it was learnt.
The public dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks will sooner or latter be declared resolved once the parties sign the “agreement”. We can only hope there would not be any more devils in the details.
Comments
Post a Comment
Join the conversation