Poor Farmer

This entire trademark wrangling finds its roots to those early days in 2004 when Ethiopia was preparing to file an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the names Harar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe. Though Starbucks won't discuss the issue in public, I found out that at least three reasons are driving the company’s decisions which might bear risks to its own brand . In 2004, just before filing their applications to register the coffee brands, Ethiopian government officials discovered that Starbucks had already submitted an application to trademark “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo.” The government attempted to engage Starbucks in discussions because it had become evident that the company’s application might jeopardize Ethiopia’s plans to trademark the name, Sidamo. The company later dropped its application to register “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo” but only after, the National Coffee Association (NCA), whom Starbucks is the influential member , had fil...

Ethiopia’s coffee trademarking initiative and Starbucks’ refusal to acknowledge the country’s ownership of the names Sidamo and Harar stirred up both scholarly and jingoistic dialogue. So far, the taboo surrounding intellectual property as a matter of rights has been unveiled. This has left some corporations, such as Starbucks, shocked while the public, whose trust in Capitalism obstructed their views through Corporate Social Responsibility, is angered. The government in Ethiopia and Starbucks proved to be making a bad blend. Starbucks’ damage control measures have electrified the majority of consumers to campaign against unethical business practices. Critics of the government in Ethiopia, on the other hand, suspect that the project is the government’s plan to control the coffee industry. The confusion left some people disillusioned and cynical. Situations in Ethiopia substantiate the claim by those who are convinced that the government’s dictatorship, abusive practices, and widespread...

Gemeda Humnasa of American Chronicle warns that Starbucks’ refusal to accept Ethiopia’s ownership of its own coffee names will have consequences. “There are many factors contributing to Ethiopia’s inability to remove poverty including costly wars, dry weather, unfair international trade barriers and subsidized corresponding sectors in other well-off nations” Gemeda said. I add absence of democracy and human rights abuses to the list. Gemeda continues, “But Starbucks’ refusal to allow Ethiopia to control the three names of its coffees might end up hurting the reputation of the company as well as spark activists against globalization & “Trade Injustice” around the world. This current case might add new recruits to their cause, which is a new development that can escalate quickly and become a concern for many other international corporations. “Trade Injustice” is one of the various issues organizations like CORPWATCH monitor in order to help poor nations stand up against unfair inter...

Human rights groups are the latest voices accusing Starbucks of its indecency and for abusing its market power, a style widely seen as dictating a remotely controlled colonial market system. Despite consumers' repeated calls for Starbucks to honor its promises to coffee growers, the company refused to budge from its position of blocking Ethiopia’s plan to trademark its gourmet coffees in the US markets. The dispute over Ethiopia’s coffee names unmasked the disingenuous business ethics deeply rooted in the corporate world. Starbucks prides itself as a leader of “Corporate Social Responsibility” in the industry. After CEO Jim Donald’s visit to Ethiopia, the company said that it "is committed to working with the Ethiopian government to find a solution that supports the Ethiopian coffee farmer." In reality, this commitment is translated into the company’s denying of poor coffee farmers’ of a rare opportunity that could change their lives. Ethiopia, paradoxically stereo-typed ...

What are the economic reasons why Starbucks is unyielding to Ethiopia's rights to the names Sidamo and Harar? Do companies, such as Starbucks have rights to deny farmers of their cultural heritages? Analysis coming up soon. Related: To read Starbucks' responses, click here . For Oxfam's recent call to Starbucks, please read this . For an independent analysis on the dispute, please click here .

Nyeri Coffee Farmers Rage at Starbucks Officials Starbucks officials made a stop over in Kenya last week to visit the progress of the Kenya Heartland Coffee project, which is aimed at helping Kenyan farmers to improve their coffees’ quality and production. Jim Donald, CEO and other senior Starbucks officers’ visit to Kenya followed the failed talks with the government in Ethiopia regarding the coffee trademark dispute. The report by Moses Njagih and agencies said that "angry farmers from a coffee factory in Nyeri District have blasted officials of the Starbucks Coffee Company for refusing to respond to their questions on a project the multinational is undertaking in the area.” The Standard quoted Mr John Kabira, a farmer as saying, "Starbucks interests are only in making profits from our coffee, and yet they are not even mindful about our welfare." Read the news here .

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 “H...