

Trademark and Ethiopian coffee beans - score one for the little guy - grellas
http://tacticalip.com/2010/10/08/whats-in-a-name-a-starbucks-trademark-dilema/

======
thomas11
Interesting. Trademarking regional products is a big thing in Europe with its
many centuries-old food traditions. Switzerland and the EU both have official
recognition of protected designations of origin, for instance for Gruyere
cheese. Proponents say it protects local tradition and ensures high-quality
products, opponents say it's a veiled subsidy for over-expensive farming.

However, at least in Switzerland producers must do more than just be located
in the right region, they also must adhere to quality criteria. That could be
a way for Ethiopea to leverage their new trademark: officially ensure that
this coffee is actually special, and check that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The EU version also hinders making the same product in a different region. For
instance, it is illegal to sell "Champagne imitation wine - made in Portugal"
in the EU.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indication>

The US does not enforce the anti-consumer portions of this (which prevent
consumers from learning that Wisconsin Brie-like cheese is similar to Brie),
only the pro-consumer parts (you can't say "made in France" unless it really
was).

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status#U...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status#United_States)

------
yummyfajitas
Ok, on the one hand, I agree. Starbucks should not be allowed to trademark the
name of an Ethiopian region. On the other hand, I don't see why Ethiopia
should be allowed to either. Just as the trademark test fails for Starbucks,
it also fails for Ethiopia.

Sidamo seems to describe a certain product category, namely a particular style
of coffee. The Ethiopian government should not control this term any more than
the Belgian government should control the term "French Fries".

~~~
Groxx
Champagne, anyone?

~~~
technomancy
Champagne is not a trademark, it's a geographic distinction:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status>

~~~
Groxx
What was it before 1992? I'd imagine it was still controlled somehow.

edit: Also, it says it covers:

> _These laws protect the names of wines, cheeses, hams, sausages, olives,
> beers, Balsamic vinegar and even regional breads, fruits, and vegetables._

These are different from, say, a blacksmith's creations how, precisely? Or
batteries? They're consumable too. Or a city-named drug, which would probably
be able to claim more loose definitions than a patent could, blocking _far_
more competition? It seems an arbitrary distinction to be made around certain
kinds of _foods_ , when you really can't define "food" in any hard-lined,
legally-acceptable way, without endless bickering about what is and what isn't
food. Which is kind of the point of the disapproval of protecting the words in
the first place.

edit again: and that only covers the EU. How does the rest of the world see /
enforce it?

------
Nekojoe
If this was in the EU it would be a case for Protected Geographical Status -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_Geographical_Status>

------
Tichy
I am confused - how did the Trademark help raise the price of the beans? Had
Starbucks been selling false beans before (non-Ethopian beans with an Ethopian
label)?

~~~
aristus
Exclusivity.

~~~
Tichy
I still don't understand? Doesn't the Ehtopian government automatically have
exclusivity on Ethopian beans?

~~~
notahacker
By preventing Starbucks from ever having the capability to sell "Sidamo" beans
from Kenya or Vietnam, it strengthens the bargaining position of the farmers
and allows the Ethiopian government to devise more creative means to control
the sale of beans than simple price or export controls.

~~~
hugh3
But then there's this bit:

 _Starbucks told Ethiopia that geographic certification, which certifies that
a product is made in a certain place, was more appropriate. But, Ethiopia knew
that certification would accomplish little, since Starbucks could still sell
Ethiopian beans, as long as they were grown in the advertised region._

which seems to imply that the Ethiopian Government wouldn't have been happy
with geographic certification which would nonetheless have prevented Starbucks
(or anyone else) from selling "Sidamo" beans which weren't grown in the Sidamo
region of Ethiopia.

It sounds like the Ethiopian Government wants a trademark on "Sidamo" so that
it can step in between Sidama coffee farmers and Western coffee buyers in
order to demand a cut. That doesn't sound like "score one for the little guy"
at all, it sounds like "little guy gets screwed by government".

But the story is written confusingly, so I may be missing something.

