Throughout this public dispute over Ethiopia’s move to trademark the country’s best coffee names, Starbucks’ position has been to refrain from discussing the issue publicly. As a result, those who have attempted to listen to Starbucks’ points of views are puzzled because the only information available to the public is through the press releases where Starbucks insists its hands are not behind the blocking of Ethiopia’s application. The company does not even talk about what it knows as an influential member of the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA). The following statement issued on August 08, 2006 by the SCAA and which should be familiar to Starbucks explains why Ethiopia’s first application to register the name “Yirgacheffe” was accepted in the US while the applications for “Harar” and “Sidamo” have been blocked:
” Apparently, the Yirgacheffe examining attorney had not concluded the word “Yirgacheffe” was generic and merely descriptive, which had been the case with the “Harrar” examining attorney. In order to correct what appeared to be a research error by the Yirgacheffe examining attorney regarding the meaning and use of the word “Yirgacheffe,” SCAA filed a permitted Letter of Protest with the Trademark Office, citing evidence that demonstrated the term “Yirgacheffe” is used and understood by the relevant industry and the general public as the name of a type of coffee from a district in Ethiopia. SCAA requested the application be given further review, and the mark be refused as generic under the appropriate sections of the Trademark Act, as had been done in the case of “Harrar.””
Indeed, Starbucks had undermined, in what appears to be a miscalculation on its part, possibilities of any challenges coming from the third world country. The company and the industry at large were taken by surprise when Oxfam took on the trademark standoff and eventually forced Starbucks to sit for talks with the Ethiopian government’s representatives after several months of refusal to do so.
Following Oxfam’s media campaign, however, Starbucks appeared to have taken the issue seriously, thus the series of press releases followed by a high level visit to Ethiopia. The company’s CEO Jim Donald traveled to Ethiopia for talks (not with the Director of the office that handles the matter, but) with the man who heads the state – a show off of power. Since, Starbucks issued two press releases of similar message in content. To decode the diplomatic lingo used in the press releases right after the meeting, the CEO’s visit to Meles Zenawi was unsuccessful. No agreement was reached during the meeting between the government and Starbucks.
In all of the press releases issued to date, the company’s carefully worded talking points are repeated in one form or another.
The public deserves an explanation on crucial questions and expects Starbucks to provide it with straight forward answers to some of the questions. For the sake of simplicity, I have put together a list of core points repeated in the press releases Starbucks issued on the public dispute. The comments and questions gathered from readers are also inserted under each of the items. Following are the statements:
Starbucks has never filed an opposition to the Ethiopian government’s trademark application.
Fine
We have never claimed ownership to any regional names used to describe the origin of our coffees.
I do not think this is genuine because Starbucks have indeed had applied to register the name “Sidamo” in Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo coffee. The application was later dropped.
We are committed to working collaboratively and continuing dialogue with key stakeholders to find a solution that benefits Ethiopian coffee farmers.
This publicized promise for commitment is what makes Starbucks unique in the industry. Oxfam’s campaign is appropriately centered on asking the company to keep its promises.
We are proud of the longstanding relationships that we have with coffee farmers in more than 27 countries.
True, but this is a fair trade question, not related to the trademark issue.
Starbucks is committed to paying premium prices for all our coffee. This is part of our integrated approach to coffee sourcing which includes C.A.F.E. Practices. In 2005, Starbucks paid an average price of US $1.28 per pound, which was 23 percent above the average New York “C” price during the same time period, for all of its coffees.
This is a fair trade question, not related to the trademark issue. Besides, the statement is misleading because the New York “C” price for commodity coffees is being compared with the price for the gourmet coffees that Starbucks bought. The specialty coffees which are sold by Starbucks for $26/lp should fetch a price better than $1.28/lp for the farmers. How much has Starbucks paid for these fine coffees?
Between 2002 and 2006 Starbucks increased its Ethiopian coffee purchases by nearly 400 percent.
This is a fair trade question as well, not related to the trademark issue. Nevertheless, the farmers are grateful for this increase. Fair Trade advocates, however, question the price paid for a pound of coffee to make sure that the farmers are not taken advantage of only because they are desperate to sell as much coffee as possible to make a living. Has the price for both the specialty and commodity coffees increased? Also, what was the purchase quantity before the increase - 400% increase on what? What percent of Starbucks' purchases come from Ethiopia now and then?
We believe a far better alternative to protect geographically descriptive terms and ensure they represent quality products that come from a specific region is through a geographic certification program. We support the recognition of the source of our coffees and have a deep appreciation for the farmers that grow them.
Read “geographical indications (GI).” The application submitted by Ethiopia is for trademark – not for GI. For such highly demanded products as the specialty coffees, sellers were supposed to have a better bargaining power on deciding what is good.
“Starbucks names our coffees to honor the country of origin and to demonstrate how high quality Arabica coffees are grown. By naming coffee growing regions, we provide significant awareness to 40 million customers in more than 12,000 stores worldwide. This helps provide insight into coffee growing regions and celebrates coffee origins with coffee drinkers around the world. We hope to continue using regional names to educate about and promote the Ethiopian regions where these coffees are grown.”
Here comes the climax point and, I think, this makes a lot sense from the point of view of Starbucks’ business interests. But, keeping in mind that both GI and trademark are protected by IP rights, why would GI be better for the farmers than trademarking? Why is it that trademarking these names would not benefit the farmers?
I welcome Starbucks’ responses or comments on this issue at poorfarmer@gmail.com
” Apparently, the Yirgacheffe examining attorney had not concluded the word “Yirgacheffe” was generic and merely descriptive, which had been the case with the “Harrar” examining attorney. In order to correct what appeared to be a research error by the Yirgacheffe examining attorney regarding the meaning and use of the word “Yirgacheffe,” SCAA filed a permitted Letter of Protest with the Trademark Office, citing evidence that demonstrated the term “Yirgacheffe” is used and understood by the relevant industry and the general public as the name of a type of coffee from a district in Ethiopia. SCAA requested the application be given further review, and the mark be refused as generic under the appropriate sections of the Trademark Act, as had been done in the case of “Harrar.””
Indeed, Starbucks had undermined, in what appears to be a miscalculation on its part, possibilities of any challenges coming from the third world country. The company and the industry at large were taken by surprise when Oxfam took on the trademark standoff and eventually forced Starbucks to sit for talks with the Ethiopian government’s representatives after several months of refusal to do so.
Following Oxfam’s media campaign, however, Starbucks appeared to have taken the issue seriously, thus the series of press releases followed by a high level visit to Ethiopia. The company’s CEO Jim Donald traveled to Ethiopia for talks (not with the Director of the office that handles the matter, but) with the man who heads the state – a show off of power. Since, Starbucks issued two press releases of similar message in content. To decode the diplomatic lingo used in the press releases right after the meeting, the CEO’s visit to Meles Zenawi was unsuccessful. No agreement was reached during the meeting between the government and Starbucks.
In all of the press releases issued to date, the company’s carefully worded talking points are repeated in one form or another.
The public deserves an explanation on crucial questions and expects Starbucks to provide it with straight forward answers to some of the questions. For the sake of simplicity, I have put together a list of core points repeated in the press releases Starbucks issued on the public dispute. The comments and questions gathered from readers are also inserted under each of the items. Following are the statements:
Starbucks has never filed an opposition to the Ethiopian government’s trademark application.
Fine
We have never claimed ownership to any regional names used to describe the origin of our coffees.
I do not think this is genuine because Starbucks have indeed had applied to register the name “Sidamo” in Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo coffee. The application was later dropped.
We are committed to working collaboratively and continuing dialogue with key stakeholders to find a solution that benefits Ethiopian coffee farmers.
This publicized promise for commitment is what makes Starbucks unique in the industry. Oxfam’s campaign is appropriately centered on asking the company to keep its promises.
We are proud of the longstanding relationships that we have with coffee farmers in more than 27 countries.
True, but this is a fair trade question, not related to the trademark issue.
Starbucks is committed to paying premium prices for all our coffee. This is part of our integrated approach to coffee sourcing which includes C.A.F.E. Practices. In 2005, Starbucks paid an average price of US $1.28 per pound, which was 23 percent above the average New York “C” price during the same time period, for all of its coffees.
This is a fair trade question, not related to the trademark issue. Besides, the statement is misleading because the New York “C” price for commodity coffees is being compared with the price for the gourmet coffees that Starbucks bought. The specialty coffees which are sold by Starbucks for $26/lp should fetch a price better than $1.28/lp for the farmers. How much has Starbucks paid for these fine coffees?
Between 2002 and 2006 Starbucks increased its Ethiopian coffee purchases by nearly 400 percent.
This is a fair trade question as well, not related to the trademark issue. Nevertheless, the farmers are grateful for this increase. Fair Trade advocates, however, question the price paid for a pound of coffee to make sure that the farmers are not taken advantage of only because they are desperate to sell as much coffee as possible to make a living. Has the price for both the specialty and commodity coffees increased? Also, what was the purchase quantity before the increase - 400% increase on what? What percent of Starbucks' purchases come from Ethiopia now and then?
We believe a far better alternative to protect geographically descriptive terms and ensure they represent quality products that come from a specific region is through a geographic certification program. We support the recognition of the source of our coffees and have a deep appreciation for the farmers that grow them.
Read “geographical indications (GI).” The application submitted by Ethiopia is for trademark – not for GI. For such highly demanded products as the specialty coffees, sellers were supposed to have a better bargaining power on deciding what is good.
“Starbucks names our coffees to honor the country of origin and to demonstrate how high quality Arabica coffees are grown. By naming coffee growing regions, we provide significant awareness to 40 million customers in more than 12,000 stores worldwide. This helps provide insight into coffee growing regions and celebrates coffee origins with coffee drinkers around the world. We hope to continue using regional names to educate about and promote the Ethiopian regions where these coffees are grown.”
Here comes the climax point and, I think, this makes a lot sense from the point of view of Starbucks’ business interests. But, keeping in mind that both GI and trademark are protected by IP rights, why would GI be better for the farmers than trademarking? Why is it that trademarking these names would not benefit the farmers?
I welcome Starbucks’ responses or comments on this issue at poorfarmer@gmail.com
For Oxfam's recent call to Starbucks, please read this.
For an independent analysis on the dispute between Ethiopia and Starbucks over trademark names, please click here.
It is simply excellent phrase
ReplyDelete