Disingenuous Starbucks video distorts trademark issue

Starbucks released a two minutes video on YouTube in response to that of Oxfam. No surprise there for a defensive and desperate party. What is striking in the video interview is the attempt by Dub Hay, Head of Starbucks coffee Team, to mislead the public.

Here is the first segment of the one-man show:

Question on the screen: Why won't Starbucks sign the trademark agreement with Ethiopia?

Dub Hay: (from narration) For us to do what we've been asked to do, which is to sign a licensing agreement recognizing the trademark name to the geographies is something against the law. US law does have and allow it, and allow it for this, it does specifically allow it, called certification and we have proposed for this as an alternative; we are very committed to finding a solution with the Ethiopian government as it is in the best interest of the coffee farmers.

Simply put, trademark is illegal because the law allows for certification [also].

The argument is insencere but the intrinsic motive justifies the point of argument.

Dub Hay implies that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted Ethiopia the trademark for the name Yirgacheffe in violation of US law. Mr. Hay's argument also implies that the leading US law firm, Arnold & Porter LLC is advising Ethiopia to violate US law.

Light Years IP (LYIP) says that Ethiopia bases its claims for the right to trademark protection on the fact that Yirgacheffe, Sidamo, and Harar coffees are distinctive, with profiles of qualities (flavor, aroma, physical properties, etc.) that are distinctive, and are recognizable as such to the coffee industry. USPTO's decision to grant the trademark was based on the acceptance of this view with regard to Yirgacheffe.

The USPTO did not conclude that Sidamo was not permissible due to association with a geographical region. Rather, USPTO was persuaded, by a filing from the National Coffee Association, which is directed by an executive committee that includes Dub Hay himself, to reach an interim conclusion that Sidamo is generic. (It is important to note that this conclusion on Sidamo is not final and Ethiopia is preparing counter-arguments. The similar filing by the NCA on Harar has not yet been considered by the USPTO.)

Ethiopia claims, Sidamo is as distinct as Yirgacheffe is on its own merits. In fact, Starbucks itself acknowledges the distinctiveness of the products and their associated names by using those names on its own packaging. The consumer does associate unique quality with the names Sidamo and Harar, not mere geographic origin. Most buyers do not even know where Harar is located on the map.

Starbucks is being asked to voluntarily recognize Ethiopia's rights to ownership of the names and to act as though Ethiopia owned the trademarks. According to LYIP, Starbucks is free to do so without either side breaking the law.

Starbucks’ long standing position throughout this campaign of distorting information and Dub Hay’s recent loose explanation to mislead the public further expose the company’s disingenuous business.

Mr. Hay is the latest Starbucks executive to come forth, since CEO Jim Donald, who said (here) that he doesn't understand the differences between certification and trademarking [but prefers certification rather than trademarking in the Ethiopian case any ways,] to explain what the company stands for.

It is pathetic that the company irresponsibly dwells in making absurd arguments solely in pursuit of commercial benefit.