A bitter fight brewing: Ethiopia and Starbucks clash over coffee
Last year, the Ethiopian government filed trademark applications to protect the names “Sidaroâ€, “Harar†and “Yirgacheffe†– the hope was to prevent unscrupulous coffee dealers from buying inexpensive beans from other countries and selling them as “Sidaroâ€, whether or not they emerged from the region.
Unfortunately, the USPTO (US Patent and Trademark Office) rejected Ethiopia’s claims to these three names.
* * *
The absurdity of the situation, as I read it, is the need for a very poor nation to protect “intellectual property†they’ve owned for centuries in an expensive foreign market. The coffee situation makes me think of the notorious “turmeric patent“, where Indian scientists and attorneys had to present ancient Sanskrit manuscripts to overturn a US patent that introduced the “novel†use of turmeric for wound healing, a process used for thousands of years in India. The patent was overturned, but it’s a huge barrier for poor countries to have to litigate bogus patents in US court.
More controversy regarding indigenous property rights clashing with Western legal systems.
It’s Starbucks’ right to secure the patent in the U.S.–they applied for it first. Ethan is right that the problem is more with the USPTO than with Starbucks. There should, rather, be a certification system for marking beans from regions as being from those regions–this is being proposed now. This type of system is used already for apples and wines, among other products.
But can you trademark a name of a place? Could I trademark the name “France?” Have, for example, Native American tribes been able to protect use of their tribal names from being owned by products? The Crazy Horse malt liquor suit was settled. The case of some Native Americans suing the Washington Redskins for their trademark of their disparaging name is still alive. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44, 46 (C.A.D.C. 2005).
Are we forced to extra-judicial resorts in resolving these types of issues? Everyone seems to be pushing for settlement and policy issues. Should the courts step in and take a stand?
October 30, 2006 11:42 am 2 Comments
Other Links to this Post
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Subscribe
By Danielle, October 30, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Yes, a word that is the name of a region that also happens to be the name of a product can certainly be trademarked. Ethiopia was already successful in trademarking Yirgacheffe in the US. It’s only Harar and Sidamo that are having issues. And they’re having issues not because trademarking coffee is novel (even though it is a pretty progressive program) but because Starbucks and then the NCA submitted opposition to the trademarks with the USPTO. Yirgacheffe they left alone, and that got through fine. Also, over 30 other countries have already ok’d the trademark applications. The only real issue so far is in the US.
Even if there was a certification program that they were following, that doesn’t lead to any increased revenue or negotiation power for Ethiopia. It just leads to justification for a higher retail price when you buy the coffee at Starbucks. Ethiopia should be able to own its own product, as well as the value that they put into that. Other suggestions are helpful, but aggressive legal blocking of Ethiopia’s ownership of their own names is the farthest thing possible from being helpful.
By byronn skinner, February 9, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Hi. I came across your post here. I think the issue here between Ethiopia and Starbucks has already been settled couple of years back. And, I was happy with that. It would have been very disheartening if one business entity – however huge it is- can overpower the interest of so many impoverished farmers in one country. This is the very downside of globalization. I don’t think that whatever is in the agreement was ever disclosed. They say that Starbucks has agreed to help the farmers from Ethiopia to yield better productivity. I’m not really sure if those people from starbucks could ever impart something to those Ethiopian farmers that have been in the coffee industry for ages. But, I’ll take the mutual concession between the two parties anytime. This will always be a desirable ending for a bitter dispute.