Director Says “Some of the Answers are Incomplete or Wrong”

I received the following message from Getachew Mengistie, Director of the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) shortly after I published this interview with the government’s officials:

Dear Wondwossen,

Thank you very much for sending me the script.* I have found that some of the answers are incomplete or wrong. This may be due to poor communication.** I would thus like to give clarifications below and kindly ask you to make the necessary corrections in the blog.

I really appreciate the excellent work that you have been doing in promoting the initiative.

With warmest regards

I think the remarks are too snappish for the clarifications offered because, in my view, the clarifications did not have substantial impacts on the contents.

For the sake of clarity I have reposted the questioned Q & A’s followed by the clarification and my comments.

* Since this blog is blocked in Ethiopia, as are many others, I had to include a copy of the transcript/posting in the body of my email to Getachew Mengistie.
** The interview was conducted in English [though we knew we also had the leisure of using Amharic, one of the official languages of Ethiopia, as a medium] in order to avoid misinterpretations and possible misunderstandings owing to the technicality of the issues being addressed.
-------------------

CP: Getachew, you mentioned Common Law. Could you explain what it has got to do with the agreement?

Getachew: There are some countries where Common Law is recognized. For example, in Canada trademarks, not Common Law, is recognized. Common Law is recognized in Japan but not in France. So, the recognition of Ethiopia's Common Law rights enhances the position of Ethiopia [where the trademarks are pending.]

Clarification: There are countries that follow a common law system and that this will enable us to have recourse to seek protection of our rights in these countries. Examples of the countries that follow the common law system include Canada, UK and the USA. Japan does not follow the common law system.

My comment: I regret UK was not included and Japan & France were mixed up in the original posting. It is good to know that USA also follows the common law system.

CP: So, what's the difference between the agreements referred to in your joint press releases in February and that on June20, 2007?

Getachew: Two important accomplishments were achieved in February, 2007: first, Starbucks recognized Ethiopia's rights to promote the licensing agreement; that they will not oppose the designation and licensing efforts. Secondly, we agreed to resolve our differences through on going negotiations. In June 2007, we reached a settlement.

Clarification: The February press release made public the two important achievements that:
1. Starbucks recognized the right and choice of Ethiopia to protect its fine coffee designationsthrough trade marks and promote them using licensing agreements.
2. Starbucks will not oppose Ethiopia’s efforts to trademark and license the fine coffee designations.

It also left the door open to narrow down the difference in the approach of the parties in protecting the coffee designations.

The June agreement was made possible as a result of communications made based on the agreement reached in February. More over, the release differs from February’s release in that it made public the signing of a marketing, distribution and licensing agreement in which Starbuck agreed to use the coffee designations that are registered or pending under agreed terms and conditions.

My comment: It is still curious how the above items 1 & 2 constitute an “agreement” in the sense the term was used in that press release. In addition, the last paragraph which states “..made public the signing of…” is inaccurate. The June 20th press release did not publicize the signing of an agreement, thus the subsequent confusion.

CP: The February joint press release gave the wrong impression that you had settled your dispute while there was no real agreement. That created a great deal of confusion among campaigners. Many believe Starbucks, a company with professional communication experts, has worded the press release so carefully that it sent wrong information as though the disputewas over. Do you agree that it was wrong for you to sign on Starbucks' press release?

Getachew: We were not wrong. We were forced later on to issue our own press release. In February, Starbucks had changed its position from saying that Ethiopia's attempt to trademark the coffee marks was wrong to recognizing the rights and choices of Ethiopia. They said that they wouldn't oppose Ethiopia's efforts. We believe these two achievements have contributedtowards the negotiation process [that followed.]

Clarification: In November 2006, when the officials of Starbucks visited Ethiopia, we could not reach an agreement to resolve our differences and that we were forced to issue our own press release.

My comment: Of course there was no agreement to be announced in November, 2006. And even the press release issued then was shaky. Any way, I am still not clear as to the link between this statement and the question at hand: differences and/or similarities of the press releases of February and June, 2007.