Since the trademark dispute between Starbucks and Ethiopia was officially declared to be over on June 20, 2007, there has been a growing skepticism about the very settlement of the matter. Neither side of the parties is willing to disclose the details of the agreement they say have signed.
For the past thirty days, I have been trying to get first hand information from the parties to no tangible success.
Starbucks would not respond to my repeated calls.
From the government’s side, I was privileged to speak with Samuel Assefa, Ethiopia’s Ambassador to Washington and Getachew Mengistie, Director of Ethiopia’s Intellectual Property Office on general matters but, to this date, I have not gotten the answers to the questions I have gathered from readers of this blog.
In the coming days, I will publish the questions, hopefully with (if not, without) the government’s response.
In the mean time, the saga continues as Addis Fortune entertains the exchange of letters between the government’s representatives on one side and Shlomo Bachrach, a former member of Light Years IP, the consulting organization advising Ethiopia on the coffee trademark project, on the other. The following is Mr. Bachrach’s response to this letter wherein the government rebuffed this commentary.
---------------
Surprising Secrecy from Starbucks Agreement
Sholomo Bachrach
To Addis Fortune (Letters to the Editor)
July 23, 2007
Dear Editor,
I wish to thank Samuel Assefa (PhD), Ethiopia's ambassador to the United States (US), and Getachew Mengistie, director general of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office, for their clarifications in the "Letter to the Editor" section, headlined "Binding the Terms of the Starbucks Agreement" [Volume 8, Number 376, July 15, 2007].
They state that there is a signed agreement, and that Ethiopia benefits from this agreement. This is good news. The strength of their reaction to my scepticism is surprising, because secret agreements encourage doubt. This is particularly true when Ethiopians are expected to take pride in an agreement about which they knew almost nothing, and now know only a little more.
Referring to my scepticism as a violation of professional ethics seems an overreaction also. The gentlemen correctly state that I have no firsthand knowledge about the negotiations with Starbucks. I did not claim that I had such information.
What does this have to do with professional ethics? As they acknowledge, I based my opinions on public information, since this was all that I had.
They charge me with factual inaccuracies, but do not identify them. They have their own factual inaccuracy to acknowledge. According to their letter, I left the project in February. In fact, as Getachew Mengistie knows, between March 11 and March 26 I travelled to Addis Abeba to work with him. I resigned shortly after returning to the US, before the negotiations began.
Unfortunately, the information about the time of my resignation, which was in the text I submitted for publication, was left out of the published version. I regret this because it incorrectly suggests that I might have had access to 'inside information'.
I am struck by the level of secrecy surrounding this agreement. If Ethiopia's negotiators have secured important benefits at the bargaining table, why not give the farmers and exporters some idea of what those benefits might be.
Can nothing more be said without revealing 'business secrets'? Secrecy is the mother's milk of scepticism and doubt.
As the gentlemen and I agree, Ethiopia received valuable publicity for its coffee sector in the past year. The agreement with Starbucks had nothing to do with this. It was the Oxfam campaign against Starbucks that captured world attention and brought pressure on a reluctant Starbucks to negotiate with Ethiopia.
Indignant words aside, time will tell whether there are effective distribution, marketing and licensing agreements in place. More important, time will tell whether or not these agreements are bringing Ethiopia's farmers and exporters a bigger share of the retail price of its premium coffees or whether they continue to receive the same small percentage.
What adds to the mystery is that the Ethiopian Embassy had notified certain individuals that there would be a signing-ceremony on June 20, 2007, with invitations to be issued by the Embassy. This ceremony never happened.
ReplyDeleteIt is a safe assumption that Starbucks requested that there be no public ceremony.
First of all I would like to thank Shlomo Bachrach who suggested to Light-Years IP CEO that "Ethiopian famous coffee names" as an ideal project to demonstrate the value of trademarks and other intellectual property for developing countries.
ReplyDeleteHad it not been for Bachrach suggestion and as a result the discovery of Starbucks application, Ethio-Starbucks dispute wouldn't have started by then.
Any ways thanks to Oxfam, Light years IP, to you Coffee Politics blogger and the public at large the campaign was powerful.
The campaign was public and global. all Ethiopians and friends of us have done a lot to the benefit of poor farmers. Every one who was supporting the campaign had a purpose and goal. After it was declared that the dispute is over, we didn't hear from starbucks but the Ethiopian embassy and Ethi-IP are telling us " the dispute is over! we have agreed! The detail is secret." If starbucks and Ethiopia agreed some sort of marketing agreement they can keep it secret it was not our campaign.
We are asking the result of the campaign. They should tell us what they did to benefit the poor farmers, what they agreed about the licensing issue. It is public issue and we all are the owner of the campaign. Both party luck transparency. We would like to know if our campaign is really successful, if we achieved our goals after the campaign?
Thanks!
If a man comes to your front door and says he is conducting a survey And asks you to show him your bum, do not show him your bum. This is a scam. He only wants to see your bum. I wish I had got this yesterday. I feel so stupid and cheap. -The Bum http://www.widgetmate.com/posters Some of the best images available for free.
ReplyDeleteAs an Ethiopian, I am appalled and certainly felt ashamed by the deliberate cover up and personal attack aimed at Mr Sholomo. Those two officials of the Ethiopian government, namely, Amb Samuel and Ato Getachew have certainly something to hide.
ReplyDeleteThe question everybody is asking simply is what does the agreement entail? What does it say about the trade mark issue of the specialty coffees, Sidamo and Yirgachefe products? Did Starbucks agree to raise the price of Ethiopian specialty coffee prices where it reaps off an exorbitant and immoral profit from the poor farmers?
The devil is in the detail. The International Community, especially those of us in the US, wants to hear the contents of the supposedly signed agreement. Remember, ninety thousand people from all over the world signed a protest petition in a few days in support of the Oxfam's initiative.
What is ironic in this case is the Ethiopian government which is supposedly to protect the interests of the poor farmers is unashamedly blocking every effort, by outsiders, to improve the lively hood of the poor coffee farmers.
I thank and applaud Mr Sholomo for standing up and asking the right questions. Another world wide protest rally is in order, this time not only against Starbucks but also to expose those who for some unknown reasons do not want to disclose the details of the agreement.
Seleshi
The secrecy says it all about the deal. The mermaid and the Ethiopian government cadres have agreed to do their business. For currupt tyrants, "agreement" has several meanings.
ReplyDeleteI hear you all!
ReplyDeleteI have an update, people ~~
The government officials I mentioned in the post want to speak to Coffee Politics. Unless there is a change of mind, even after a month of waiting, I will do a phone interview sometime this weekend.
I have not heard from Starbucks to date. Do they care, after all? May be in the future.
Forward your questions to poorfarmer@gmail.com; sit back, and follow up coming developments right here.
Thanks for the greatest comments.