Ethiopia... Yirgacheffe™, Sidamo™, Harrar™
It's not a secret coffee that you've never heard of. It's not named with words that would be offensive to use in public. And no, it's not named after a top-secret government initiative to monitor the ripeness of coffee cherries using NASA spacecraft. We got trademark problems.
I'm sure you all heard about the efforts of the Ethiopian government to trademark the names of its' coffee territories. It came into the news when Starbucks challenged their trademark application. I think it's telling in that linked article how ridiculous the trademark procedures are and how incompetent the USPTO is. Especially when they say it's clear that when the USPTO granted the trademark to Starbucks they didn't know that Yirgacheffe was a geographic region. You tell me: how difficult would it be to google Yirgacheffe and find out it's a geographic region? Probably about as hard as it would be to figure out that "double" means "two" and "shot" is a measurement used in espresso.
Anyway, I've been reading, listening, and trying to understand what's going on with the Ethiopian trademark issues for the past year or so. I'm always leery when anyone starts meddling in intellectual property law. I've had a few theories about why this is happening and what it is leading to. Strong suspicions. And when we were in Minneapolis at the SCAA, I had the chance to ask questions. Isaiah and I were walking around the tradeshow when we found the Ethiopian booth. I walked in, picked up some literature, and stood and waited. Eventually a white man in a suit (everyone in that booth was wearing a suit) came over and asked if he could answer any questions. I told him I wanted to ask about the trademarks and he said he was the guy to talk to. His name is Steve Williams, and he works for Light Years IP, the company that helped Ethiopia obtain their trademarks around the world.
Steve was a great guy. He sort of seemed like a street thug who fell into an Oxford education. Personable, good humored, very intelligent, and long-suffering, he put up with a good half-hour of our questions, assertions, and conspiracy theories. I truly believe that Steve (and probably Light Years IP) wants to do right and thinks the path they've chosen is the right one. But I see only problems.
Here's the deal. Ethiopia has been successful in trademarking the words "Yirgacheffe," "Sidamo," "Harrar," and "Harar." ONLY Ethiopia owns the right to use those words in the United States. It is now illegal for me to sell coffee using those terms, even if that coffee comes from those regions. Ethiopia is now actively pursuing licensing agreements with people down the line, so that we can use their trademarked words to describe our coffee. For instance, if Royal Coffee, one of my brokers, signs the licensing agreement, they can sell Yirgacheffe and call it Yirgacheffe. If I sign the licensing agreement, I can do the same. If we don't sign the licensing agreement, they can't call it that and neither can I. So unless we're speaking in hushed tones behind closed doors, I may not know that the Misty Valley natural Yirgacheffe I just bought is from the Yirgacheffe region of Ethiopia. And I won't be able to tell you what region it's from. Unless I sign the licensing agreement.
The license is free for the first five years. (They'll most certainly institute fees when this term ends.) But it puts Ethiopia in control of the way I advertise, market, and sell my coffees. They have regulations and want to know my numbers - how many, how much. Supposedly they will limit the number of licenses they assign, and currently they have issued 69 or 70. Some of the big boys are already on board. Which is funny because Starbucks, who owned a couple of the trademarks before, is now a licensee. And according to the licensing agreement, they can police the trademarks for Ethiopia and prosecute anyone using the trademarks (like me) without a license. Seems like they did an end-around and got their trademark back.
I had a suspicion that part of the reason this whole thing began was the fault of Starbucks. I figured Ethiopia saw that Starbucks owned the trademark for their territory, and was using that trademarked name to make money selling coffee. And I had a feeling that maybe the coffee in that bag of "Sidamo" may not have been from Sidamo at all, or may not even have been Ethiopian coffee. There's no regulatory or certifying agency that makes sure there's truth in advertising. I'm not saying they did, but there would be nothing stopping Starbucks (or whoever) from selling a bag of coffee they call "Ethiopia Sidamo Gizmo Shmizmo™" even if the beans inside were a blend of Vietnamese coffees. I mentioned this scenario to Steve, and his physical reaction affirmed a lot more than his mouth could sidestep. He did say there were companies using the Ethiopian territory names to sell coffee and only putting a very little amount of coffee from the actual territory in the coffee blend. That may or may not have been Starbucks (but Starbucks did own the Sidamo trademark and were selling the black apron Sidamo coffee for $26 per pound). And one of the obvious stipulations in the licensing agreement is that any coffee labeled as Sidamo, Yirgacheffe or Harrar actually come from that place. I know, I know, my lawyer would strongly advise me not to post this blog. So for the record, I have no evidence that any of the above information about Starbucks is true; it is purely a hypothetical scenario.
So the reason Ethiopia and Light Years IP say they are executing these trademarks is to help the Ethiopian coffee farmers get more money for their coffee. That's interesting. I'm all for that. Sounds good. But when Isaiah and I looked around that tradeshow floor, we didn't see coffee farmers. We saw exporters and heads of coops and administrators. We saw only wealthy Ethiopians. We hear the heads of state saying they want to give more money to the farmers and we see exporters in expensive suits in Minneapolis. (I guess I'm paying my employees too much to be able to afford to buy a suit and fly to Addis Ababa.) So apparently there's already SOME money to be made in coffee in Ethiopia. How do we know that if I give more money to the government of Ethiopia (in licensing fees), it will actually trickle down to the lowly farmer? The farmer has no leverage to "own" the trademark for their territory and charge me licensing fees to use that name. It's up to the government and the people who buy the coffee from the farmers- the coops and the exporters- to pass on that money. When I asked Steve about this, he said of course there are bad people in every industry, every walk of life, but there are also good people who want to do the right thing. And those people will make sure the money gets to the farmer. But I'm not so sure.
I emailed Mark Pendergrast (author of Uncommon Grounds) about Ethiopia, and he asked me if I heard his talk about the human rights abuses in Ethiopia. I didn't, so I asked for more info. He told me to google "Ethiopian human rights abuse," and look at the Human Rights Watch website. Looks like they have the same types of problems in Ethiopia that they do in Kenya. One group is in charge and they do everything they can to keep the other groups from gaining power. It's shameful; you should read the article. Now, I'm not saying this is evidence that the Ethiopian government won't do the right thing and take care of their coffee farmers if this trademark scenario plays out in their favor. But it raises more doubt, doesn't it? It's not like I'm going to go to the SCAA tradeshow next year in Atlanta and run into a farmer from Yirgacheffe and get a chance to ask him how things have changed.
The specialty coffee industry has lately been on a course that is beneficial to coffee farmers. This relates back to what Bill McAlpin (from La Minita) was saying about coffee prices. If you encourage farmers to improve the quality of their crop, keep lots separate, identify exactly where each lot of coffee came from and who grew it, the coffee becomes worth more money. The free flow of information from farm to consumer and back to the farmer creates an economic situation that rewards farmers for producing delicious coffee (and in turn, rewards brokers for finding and identifying these coffees and rewards roasters for roasting and not ruining these coffees and rewards coffee shops for proper brewing and educating customers). The key is an open flow of information. The problem has been that I don't know exactly where some of my coffees come from. And some of them are not just from one farm; they are mixed at the regional mill or auction. These Ethiopian trademarks hide information. They make it illegal for me to tell you where some coffees come from. The new Misty Valley Yirgacheffe will simply become an Ethiopian Misty Valley. Where is that? Doesn't matter to you. Or to me really; I can just buy what tastes good from my broker. I don't have to try and locate the origin and the farmer, or try to figure out how to pay him more money for his coffee. And that's what's going to happen. They're going to make it harder for me to do those things.
Imagine this. I go to Ethiopia someday. I visit the Sidamo region and I find a farmer who (through luck or great farming methods) has produced the most outrageous, amazing coffee I've ever had. I take tons of pictures, buy the coffee for a "fair" price, and come home to share it with you. And I have a slideshow. But I can't tell you where the coffee came from. Can I even show you the pictures? And how long will it be until Ethiopia trademarks their other regional coffee term... Ethiopia™?
Steve (from Light Years IP) tells me this is just the beginning. He thinks most coffee producing countries will follow suit- trademark the regions our coffees come from. Then I won't be able to tell you where any of them were grown.
This trademarking and licensing program probably will end up just like the Fair Trade program. They're no longer selling quality coffee; they're selling the names of their regions. Selling coffee at a base price or a price that includes a licensing fee per pound sold in order to use a marketing term is no different than Fair Trade. And quality will most likely suffer.
I'll still be able to buy these coffees. We just won't be able to advertise where they came from. But I have an idea. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure our legal system allows for it. If we make up new words to use instead of the words that have been taken away from us by Ethiopia, and we publicize these words enough that everyone knows when we say "Disamo" (for instance) we really mean "Sidamo," we can re-invent geographical identification. Why not? They're just words. We could even do some research and find out what Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, and Harrar regions were called before they inherited these names. And go back to the old names.
Until someone trademarks those words and takes them away from us.
I've been asking lawyers about this, and maybe someone out there who reads my blog will know a solution. It seems like our system of intellectual property law ONLY favors selfishness. I can invent a word and trademark it and then police it to make sure no one else uses it. But I want to protect a word in the other direction. I want to protect a made-up word for everyone to use for all times. I want to protect a word so that no one else can tell us we can't use it any more. Is there no way to do that? Everything is MINE MINE MINE!
Maybe there are enough smart people in the coffee industry that we can figure this out. And build community by sharing words. And information. And achieve what we all want: great coffee that rewards the great coffee producer and pays fair wages for labor.
Maybe JRR Tolkien could help.
posted by Brian at 11:42 AM
10 Comments:
It's not illegal.
It technically violates their trademarks.
They have to defend it by legally engaging you.
Call the coffees what they are. You're being silly, Brian. You took on Starbucks... you know better than this!
Google "Creative Commons". That may provide your answer for trademark issues re: open source coffee terms, etc. Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Stanford who has contributed greatly to this cause. His essays are pretty interesting.
It's come to where you may have to resort to public domain info to denote the provenance of your product. It won't be much for add copy, but I'm sure you can make up a snappy name or two.
Put a big map on the wall, and mark it with pins, color coded for each coffee you sell. Print outline maps on the bag with shaded regions where the coffee comes from.
Alternately, label the bags with the approximate latitude and longitude of the sources for your coffee. I'd like to see someone trademark *that*.
Ok, this is going to be a long comment, but it's important so I'm posting it anyway. Steve Williams from Light Years IP called a couple times and then sent me an email, which I'm posting below. I have responses to some of his comments. And you might too, which you are welcome to post here. I'll post another comment when I find time to do it justice. Ah... justice. That's what it's all about, huh?
--------------------
Hi Brian,
Hardly in trouble, but I don't think you seriously expected to write what you did, particularly publicly, without getting some response did you?
It needed a response, in part because I felt some of the comments were unfair, partly because some of it was inaccurate, (I appreciate you have written it based on a single remembered conversation, with a great deal of information you were hearing for the first time, whereas I have the advantage of having spent much of the last two years hearing about and discussing the topic), but also because I came away from our conversation feeling you were someone who genuinely thought that the growers should get a better deal. So I was somewhat disappointed to see from your piece that you were so negative about the initiative.
I appreciate you come from a stand point of having a dislike of the corporate machine and all that represents to many people these days. You clearly see the business tools that come along with that, such and branding, trademarks and concepts of intellectual property ownership as part of that corporate machine.
However, I think you have to appreciate, that these tools are not intrinsically 'evil', but are valid methods for people to protect their livelihoods. To put it simply, if someone decided to open a coffee company two blocks from you, with your logo, name etc, and proceeded to make money for themselves, and take business from you based on the goodwill you had established, with no consideration for the work you had put into establishing your reputation, you would be rightly aggrieved. Intellectual property protection, trademarks, copyright etc, would be your only protection.
Below is your article, with my comments where I felt they were required. I am happy for you to decide whether to publish my response or not, but please be aware, these are my own personal opinions and not those of the Ethiopian government or Light Years IP, and should be credited as such.
I feel this is justified as your piece relied heavily on references to either myself or comments you directly accredited to me. Please feel free to contact me with your thoughts.
I can't tell you what coffee I'm drinking right now. I would be breaking the law if I told you. I'm not kidding.
Incorrect, you would not be breaking any law by telling someone what coffee you are drinking. You would be in breach of Ethiopia's trademark rights if you chose to sell one of the trademarked coffees under the trademark names.
It's not a secret coffee that you've never heard of. It's not named with words that would be offensive to use in public. And no, it's not named after a top-secret government initiative to monitor the ripeness of coffee cherries using NASA spacecraft. We got trademark problems.
I'm sure you all heard about the efforts of the Ethiopian government to trademark the names of its' coffee territories.
Incorrect, Ethiopia has trademarked three specific coffees based upon individual flavour characteristics and plant types, not their region of origin. The names are regional only insomuch as these are traditionally where these three coffees originated and have therefore become the names by which these three types of coffee are now known.
It came into the news when Starbucks challenged their trademark application. I think it's telling in that linked article how ridiculous the trademark procedures are and how incompetent the USPTO is. Especially when they say it's clear that when the USPTO granted the trademark to Starbucks they didn't know that Yirgacheffe was a geographic region. You tell me: how difficult would it be to google Yirgacheffe and find out it's a geographic region? Probably about as hard as it would be to figure out that "double" means "two" and "shot" is a measurement used in espresso.
Anyway, I've been reading, listening, and trying to understand what's going on with the Ethiopian trademark issues for the past year or so. I'm always leery when anyone starts meddling in intellectual property law. I've had a few theories about why this is happening and what it is leading to. Strong suspicions. And when we were in Minneapolis at the SCAA, I had the chance to ask questions. Isaiah and I were walking around the tradeshow when we found the Ethiopian booth. I walked in, picked up some literature, and stood and waited. Eventually a white man in a suit (everyone in that booth was wearing a suit) [ It was a business/trade event Brian, most people were wearing suits, as is common business practice.] came over and asked if he could answer any questions. I told him I wanted to ask about the trademarks and he said he was the guy to talk to. His name is Steve Williams, and he works for Light Years IP, the company that helped Ethiopia obtain their trademarks around the world.
Steve was a great guy. He sort of seemed like a street thug who fell into an Oxford education. Personable, good humored, very intelligent, and long-suffering, he put up with a good half-hour of our questions, assertions, and conspiracy theories. [I'm fairly thick skinned, and appreciate that most of the previous paragraph was positive, though I think be likened to a 'street thug' is a little unfair. For the record I do not have an Oxford education.] I truly believe that Steve (and probably Light Years IP) wants to do right and thinks the path they've chosen is the right one. But I see only problems.
Here's the deal. Ethiopia has been successful in trademarking the words "Yirgacheffe," "Sidamo," "Harrar," and "Harar." ONLY Ethiopia owns the right to use those words in the United States. It is now illegal [ Incorrect, see my first comment.] for me to sell coffee using those terms, even if that coffee comes from those regions. Ethiopia is now actively pursuing licensing agreements with people down the line, so that we can use their trademarked words to describe our coffee. For instance, if Royal Coffee, one of my brokers, signs the licensing agreement, they can sell Yirgacheffe and call it Yirgacheffe. If I sign the licensing agreement, I can do the same. If we don't sign the licensing agreement, they can't call it that and neither can I. So unless we're speaking in hushed tones behind closed doors, I may not know that the Misty Valley natural Yirgacheffe I just bought is from the Yirgacheffe region of Ethiopia. And I won't be able to tell you what region it's from. Unless I sign the licensing agreement.
The license is free for the first five years. (They'll most certainly institute fees when this term ends.) [Incorrect, as I'm sure I pointed out to you at the time, Ethiopia would have the right to chose to apply a fee to the license, but has at no point made any decision to do so.] But it puts Ethiopia in control of the way I advertise, market, and sell my coffees. [Technically it puts them in control of the way you use THEIR brand names, not your coffees] They have regulations and want to know my numbers - how many, how much. Supposedly they will limit the number of licenses they assign, and currently they have issued 69 or 70. Some of the big boys are already on board. Which is funny because Starbucks, who owned a couple of the trademarks before, is now a licensee. And according to the licensing agreement, they can police the trademarks for Ethiopia and prosecute anyone using the trademarks [Starbucks cannot prosecute anyone for using trademarks they do not own. They could of course report the trademarks misuse.] (like me) without a license. Seems like they did an end-around and got their trademark back. [Starbucks have got nothing back, as you put it. Ethiopia, not Starbucks own the trademarks. Starbucks, like other licensees have the right to use them according to the terms of the license agreement.]
I had a suspicion that part of the reason this whole thing began was the fault of Starbucks. [ Incorrect. The initiative was started long before the Starbucks dispute arose.], I figured Ethiopia saw that Starbucks owned the trademark for their territory, and was using that trademarked name to make money selling coffee. And I had a feeling that maybe the coffee in that bag of "Sidamo" may not have been from Sidamo at all, or may not even have been Ethiopian coffee. There's no regulatory or certifying agency that makes sure there's truth in advertising. I'm not saying they did, but there would be nothing stopping Starbucks (or whoever) from selling a bag of coffee they call "Ethiopia Sidamo Gizmo Shmizmo™" even if the beans inside were a blend of Vietnamese coffees. I mentioned this scenario to Steve, and his physical reaction affirmed a lot more than his mouth could sidestep. He did say there were companies using the Ethiopian territory names to sell coffee and only putting a very little amount of coffee from the actual territory in the coffee blend. [I did in fact point out that many companies use Ethiopian coffees in blends, due to it's high quality, and that there has been little attempt up till now to clearly define what that quantity might be, whether the name had been used for marketing or not.] That may or may not have been Starbucks (but Starbucks did own the Sidamo trademark and were selling the black apron Sidamo coffee for $26 per pound). And one of the obvious stipulations in the licensing agreement is that any coffee labeled as Sidamo, Yirgacheffe or Harrar actually come from that place. I know, I know, my lawyer would strongly advise me not to post this blog. So for the record, I have no evidence that any of the above information about Starbucks is true; it is purely a hypothetical scenario.
So the reason Ethiopia and Light Years IP say they are executing these trademarks is to help the Ethiopian coffee farmers get more money for their coffee. That's interesting. I'm all for that. Sounds good. But when Isaiah and I looked around that tradeshow floor, we didn't see coffee farmers. We saw exporters and heads of coops and administrators. We saw only wealthy Ethiopians. [The last statement is both unfair and somewhat offensive. Firstly if coffee farmers, who in Ethiopia are predominantly small individual family farmers, could afford to attend such trade fairs, it might be argued that they were already earning quite enough to be of little concern. For them to be represented by the nations exporters, and representatives of the co-operatives who directly protect their interests is a perfectly natural situation, and one that was repeated by representatives of many coffee nations throughout the conference. The assertion that you saw only wealthy Ethiopians is an ill-considered one. Perhaps your earlier bias against people in suits might be tainting your opinions on what represents wealth. I for one did not assume your attire at the time indicated you had just popped in on the way to a rock concert.] We hear the heads of state saying they want to give more money to the farmers and we see exporters in expensive suits in Minneapolis. (I guess I'm paying my employees too much to be able to afford to buy a suit and fly to Addis Ababa.) So apparently there's already SOME money to be made in coffee in Ethiopia. [It is Ethiopia's largest export, so clearly there is SOME money to be made in coffee, the issue is the amount that is made outside of Ethiopia on the back of their product, with no benefit going to Ethiopians.] How do we know that if I give more money to the government of Ethiopia (in licensing fees), [Again, there is no fee attached to the License.] it will actually trickle down to the lowly farmer? The farmer has no leverage to "own" the trademark for their territory and charge me licensing fees to use that name. It's up to the government and the people who buy the coffee from the farmers- the coops and the exporters- to pass on that money. When I asked Steve about this, he said of course there are bad people in every industry, every walk of life, but there are also good people who want to do the right thing. And those people will make sure the money gets to the farmer. But I'm not so sure.
I emailed Mark Pendergrast (author of Uncommon Grounds) about Ethiopia, and he asked me if I heard his talk about the human rights abuses in Ethiopia. I didn't, so I asked for more info. He told me to google "Ethiopian human rights abuse," and look at the Human Rights Watch website. Looks like they have the same types of problems in Ethiopia that they do in Kenya. One group is in charge and they do everything they can to keep the other groups from gaining power as It's shameful; you should read the article. Now, I'm not saying this is evidence that the Ethiopian government won't do the right thing and take care of their coffee farmers if this trademark scenario plays out in their favour. But it raises more doubt, doesn't it? It's not like I'm going to go to the SCAA tradeshow next year in Atlanta and run into a farmer from Yirgacheffe and get a chance to ask him how things have changed.
The specialty coffee industry has lately been on a course that is beneficial to coffee farmers. This relates back to what Bill McAlpin (from La Minita) was saying about coffee prices. If you encourage farmers to improve the quality of their crop, keep lots separate, identify exactly where each lot of coffee came from and who grew it, the coffee becomes worth more money. The free flow of information from farm to consumer and back to the farmer creates an economic situation that rewards farmers for producing delicious coffee (and in turn, rewards brokers for finding and identifying these coffees and rewards roasters for roasting and not ruining these coffees and rewards coffee shops for proper brewing and educating customers). The key is an open flow of information. [Should this open flow not work both ways? A fact that the license agreement asserts by ensuring producers are given information on how their coffee sells.] The problem has been that I don't know exactly where some of my coffees come from. And some of them are not just from one farm; they are mixed at the regional mill or auction. These Ethiopian trademarks hide information. They make it illegal for me to tell you where some coffees come from. [ Incorrect. They put you in breach of trademark if you use the trademark or sell the trademark coffees without holding a license.] It The new Misty Valley Yirgacheffe will simply become an Ethiopian Misty Valley. Where is that? Doesn't matter to you. Or to me really; I can just buy what tastes good from my broker. I don't have to try and locate the origin and the farmer, or try to figure out how to pay him more money for his coffee. And that's what's going to happen. They're going to make it harder for me to do those things.
Imagine this. I go to Ethiopia someday. I visit the Sidamo region and I find a farmer who (through luck or great farming methods) has produced the most outrageous, amazing coffee I've ever had. I take tons of pictures, buy the coffee for a "fair" price, and come home to share it with you. And I have a slideshow. But I can't tell you where the coffee came from. Can I even show you the pictures? And how long will it be until Ethiopia trademarks their other regional coffee term... Ethiopia™? [Ethiopia is the name of a country, not of a particular type of coffee. So would not be usable in the same way.]
Steve (from Light Years IP) tells me this is just the beginning. He thinks most coffee producing countries will follow suit- trademark the regions our coffees come from. [Slighty inaccurate, I actually pointed out that the trademarking of specific coffees is already in place in many countries, and others may well choose to protect themselves in a similar way.] Then I won't be able to tell you where any of them were grown.
This trademarking and licensing program probably will end up just like the Fair Trade program. They're no longer selling quality coffee; they're selling the names of their regions. Selling coffee at a base price or a price that includes a licensing fee per pound sold in order to use a marketing term is no different than Fair Trade. And quality will most likely suffer.
I'll still be able to buy these coffees. We just won't be able to advertise where they came from. But I have an idea. I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it's a good idea, but I'm not sure our legal system allows for it. If we make up new words to use instead of the words that have been taken away from us by Ethiopia, and we publicize these words enough that everyone knows when we say "Disamo" (for instance) we really mean "Sidamo," we can re-invent geographical identification. Why not? They're just words. We could even do some research and find out what Sidamo, Yirgacheffe, and Harrar regions were called before they inherited these names. And go back to the old names. [Why would you rather try to usurp the registered trademarks owned by Ethiopia in such a way, (an activity that in itself could be deemed in breach of those trademarks), than become a licensee and support the very farmers you suggest you feel are deserving of higher financial yields?]
Until someone trademarks those words and takes them away from us.
I've been asking lawyers about this, and maybe someone out there who reads my blog will know a solution. It seems like our system of intellectual property law ONLY favors selfishness. I can invent a word and trademark it and then police it to make sure no one else uses it. But I want to protect a word in the other direction. I want to protect a made-up word for everyone to use for all times. I want to protect a word so that no one else can tell us we can't use it any more. Is there no way to do that? Everything is MINE MINE MINE! [Would you not agree that poor Ethiopian farmers have earned the right to say MINE when it comes to the product they have gifted to the world for so many centuries? Is it not time they were given back the ability to reap some of the massive rewards, for so long entirely controlled by external retailers and distributors?]
Maybe there are enough smart people in the coffee industry that we can figure this out. And build community by sharing words. And information. And achieve what we all want: great coffee that rewards the great coffee producer and pays fair wages for labor.
Maybe JRR Tolkien could help.
I could have addressed a number of other points, but feel I have covered the main ones.
As I said, I would be happy to discuss things with you further once you've looked over my comments.
Regards
Steve Williams
Mr. Williams:
I appreciate your response to Brian's post. I am confused, though, about some of your clarifications. Predominantly, it has to do with the distinction you seem to be making between "Sidamo" (e.g.) the plant characteristics and tastes that have been trademarked and which is subject to trademark infringement-type enforcement, and Sidamo the region of Ethiopia.
To make sure we're on the same page, I'll copy the part of your comment that causes my confusion:
[Brian's post]: I'm sure you all heard about the efforts of the Ethiopian government to trademark the names of its' coffee territories.
[Your response]: Incorrect, Ethiopia has trademarked three specific coffees based upon individual flavour characteristics and plant types, not their region of origin. The names are regional only insomuch as these are traditionally where these three coffees originated and have therefore become the names by which these three types of coffee are now known.
[Back to me}. So, as I understand it, the distinction is that Brian can say, "This coffee you are drinking is MAO Horse, from the Sidamo region of Ethiopia," but he can't say, "You're drinking MAO Sidamo Horse coffee." Did I understand that distinction correctly?
If so, then how does that work, exactly? Most, if not all, coffees I drink are labeled by their origin, with a mark to signify the company that has bought that lot from the farmer and who is doing all the exporting. They tell me the region, so I know from which area the coffee came. This is important because, as you note, some regions have tastes distinct from others, for a variety of reasons that I only know a little about (some of which have to do with the way things are processed--nothing to do with the "characteristics of the plant"--and some that have to do with the region's agricultural characteristics--which would have an effect on the plant characteristics.
I have also learned that coffees from these regions, while similar in some basic respects, can taste COMPLETELY differently from each other.
So it would seem to me that this trademarking effort as described by you is based on faulty reasoning, for a couple of reasons that I'm trying to get to. First, I'm not sure you are making a distinction with a difference regarding the coffee's region of origin and the characteristics of the flavor and plant. If the coffee plant and flavor characteristics from Sidamo are identifiable, I don't know how you separate that identity from the region.
Second, who decides whether a particular coffee has the sufficient similarity to the "Sidamo" trademark so as to label it with the protected trademark? What if one of the coffees tastes very different and has, for example, an amazing blueberry aroma and taste not present in other Sidamos and which is not traditionally one of the flavor characteristics that has been part of the trademark?
Third, practically speaking, are you really telling us that someone is out there making determinations as to whether a coffee can be licensed "Sidamo" based upon the plant and flavor as opposed to the fact that it came from the Sidamo region of Ethiopia?
I see no problem if a coffee plantation from, say, Costa Rica, which calls itself the La Minita Estate, wants to get a trademark on the term "La Minita" to protect itself and its product from dilution and confusion. La Minita has developed its own standards and creates consistent coffees, based in large part on their processing. But to say I can't call it "Costa Rica La Minita" without violating a trademark seems silly and erroneous.
I realize that it's not that simple in Ethiopia, because of the governmental setup and ownership of land issues, and the way things have panned out there since the re-distribution of land. But is the solution really to trademark a name that is CLEARLY a region? Isn't there a better way?
For example, I'm from the South (the region in the U.S.), and we eat our barbecue sandwiches with slaw on them. It is a taste that is singular to the region of the South (some pockets more than others) and has developed over years of tradition and practice and perhaps stupidity, depending on your tastes. It is a widespread practice used by most barbecue joints in the South. Perhaps that's a fad that catches on and becomes really popular, and suddenly all over the world, people begin eating barbecue sandwiches with slaw on them, calling it "Southern Barbecue." Would it really be ok for the barbecue stands to band together to trademark the term "Southern Barbecue" so that they are getting the credit?
That's probably a ridiculous example, but I'm sleepy and can't come up with another one. But I'm sure, as ridiculous as my example may be, you may see why I am having trouble with this. If you could address this confusion, that'd be great.
Thanks again for sending in your comment, and thanks, Brian, for posting it. I think this is important, and not just to this particular case.
And one other thing that might be helpful, Mr. Williams. I realize that this action by Ethiopia has precedent. "Champagne" only being able to be called "Champagne" if it's from the Champagne region of France, forcing everyone else to call it "Sparking Wine," for example. Perhaps you could address how, under the general theories of trademark, this is permitted, and that might help the dialogue. Irrespective of the precedent for this action by Ethiopia, it just seems that telling the truth about a coffee (or a Champagne, or a cheese, like Roquefort (blue cheese from everywhere but that region)) by labeling it by its region shouldn't be subject to licensure. Is it to protect Ethiopia from folks like Starbucks using some Sidamo beans, some Yemen beans, and some from somewhere else and then labeling it "Sidamo," as opposed to "Sidamo-Yemen blend?" That makes sense. But, I don't know. To say that you can't call a coffee that TRULY IS from Sidamo "MAO Sidamo Horse" without entering into a licensure, well, that seems not right.
Hell. Now I'm going to have to get on Westlaw. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time. And, if I may, I think Brian's description of you was meant as a compliment.
Audra Hamilton
There's a website for the licensing of the Ethiopian trademarks.
You can read the agreement online.
The list of companies that have signed the agreement kind of made me chuckle (if you've paid attention to the blog and podcast over the past couple years, you'll know why):
Barefoot Coffee Roasters, Santa Clara, USA
Cooper & Co., St Helier, Jersey
Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Waterbury, USA
Heinrich Christian, Germany
Highland Coffees, Crieff, Scotland
iKhofi Roasters, Weltevreden Park, South Africa
James' Gourmet Coffee Co., Herefordshire, England
Red Whale Coffee Co., New Brunswick, Canada
Taylors of Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England
Mercanta The Coffee Hunters, Kingston Upon Thames, England
D.R. Wakefield & Co. Ltd., London, England
Equal Exchange Trading Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland
Monmouth Coffee Company, London, England
Planet Bean Coffee, Guelph, Canada
Equal Exchange, West Bridgewater, USA
Starbucks Coffee Company, Seattle, USA
Trabocca BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sweetwater Organic Coffee Roasters, Gainesville, USA
Dean's Beans Organic Coffee Company, Orange, USA
Bongo Java Roasting Co., Nashville, USA
Café Campesino, Americus, USA
Coffee Exchange, Providence, USA
Conscious Coffees, Breckenridge, USA
Desert Sun Coffee Roasters, Durango, USA
Heine Brothers' Coffee, Louisville, USA
Higher Grounds Trading Company, Traverse City, USA
Just Coffee, Madison, USA
Larry's Beans, Raleigh, USA
Los Armadillos Coffee, Austin, USA
Peace Coffee, Minneapolis, USA
Pura Vida Coffee, Seattle, USA
If this is such a great idea, why haven't hundreds of thousands of coffee-related companies jumped on board?
Let me address a couple of the points Audra commented on. This issue is huge.
When Steve says Ethiopia trademarked the coffee names based on "particular flavour characteristics and plant types"... I have to side with Audra on this one. That sounds like fancy lawyer talk that was used to obtain a trademark through the ignorant USPTO, but has very little basis in reality. Tell me this Steve, what if I buy a "Yirgacheffe" this year from a lot that happens to have been fermented for 48 hours instead of (perhaps) 12 hours that it usually takes? Will that change the "flavour characteristics" and if so, is it still legally considered a Yirgacheffe? Who developed these standards for the flavor characteristics and plant types that a coffee must have in order to be legally considered a coffee under one of the trademarked names? What if I buy a coffee that was grown in the Sidamo region, but it tastes nearly identical to a typical Yirgacheffe? This is entirely possible. Is it then legally considered a "Yirgacheffe" even though it was grown in Sidamo? Further, what if I buy a coffee that was grown in Panama and this coffee was grown from cultivars identical to those found in the legal definition of Yirgacheffe, and the coffee fell within the legal definition for the flavor characteristics of Yirgacheffe? Is it then, not being based on region, legally a "Yirgacheffe" coffee?
Where are these definitions?
Right now I'm looking at the trademark filings with the USPTO because these should contain all the answers to our questions... if they were filed properly. Here's what I see:
First, a document that says "Specimens," containing only a photograph of a burlap coffee bag with the words "Yirgacheffe Washed Coffee" and lot and grade marks. And a second photograph of a mylar one-pound coffee bag from coffeeAM.com that says "Ethiopia Yirgacheffe."
In their application, the specimen description is "photographs of coffee packaging."
They also state that "The mark has become distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce for at least the five years immediately before the date of this statement." Distinctive in what way? As a region that coffee is grown or as a particular coffee with distinctive flavor characteristics and plant types?
I see an office action outgoing that says the USPTO couldn't print the picture of the coffee bag and there are 6 attachments as follows:
1- A screenshot from Union Coffee Roasters and their description of their "Organic Ethiopia Yirgacheffe." "Ethiopia and the Yirgacheffe district in particular produces some of the most exotic coffees in Africa... In Yirgacheffe the coffee is distinctive with multilayered complexity and elegance."
2- The second half of the same screen, with a flavor description of their Yirgacheffe: "Deliciously aromatic, tones of marigolds, sweet lemon and freshly cracked black pepper."
Is this the official, legal "flavour" description by which all "Yirgacheffe" coffees shall be measured?
3- A screenshot of an epinions.com page, showing "Ethiopian Highland Coffee Ethiopia Yirgacheffe-Green." In the details section it has highlighted, "Yirgacheffe growing region, northern Sidamo province, south-central Ethiopia."
I thought we weren't talking about a growing region...
4- The second half of the epinions.com page, with no mention of Yirgacheffe.
5- A screenshot from the Has Bean website describing their Ethiopian Yirgacheffe: "Yirgacheffe is a town in the Sidamo region..." Goes on to mention that it is acidic and citrusy.
6- The second half of the Has Bean page, with no mention of Yirgacheffe.
I'll be honest, I looked through all the filings (that were posted) and I didn't find anything from Ethiopia that legally defined Yirgacheffe coffee, other than a picture of a green coffee bag and a picture of a one-pound roasted coffee bag. So, legally speaking, the definition of Yirgacheffe seems neither to be a region nor "flavour characteristics and plant types." The definition of the trademark seems to simply be the word on a bag with roasted or unroasted coffee in it.
I'm not sure how they got away with NOT defining it, but it looks like that's the case.
It seems like a company producing a product would want to protect the name of that product if they were worried that other companies (or countries, in this case) were going to produce their own variety of that product and use the good name of the original product to sell the new product. Which would be misleading. Or if a company were going to produce a product of inferior quality and use the name, therby watering down the market or damaging the reputation of the company originally producing that product. Trademark protection is supposed to be all about protecting a unique mark in order to maintain the goodwill of the product bearing that mark.
In this case, Ethiopia is shooting themselves in the foot. They don't sell coffee directly to consumers. It requires much processing (roasting, brewing) after it leaves Ethiopia before it can be consumed. We (as roasters and retailers) are their biggest proponents. If we never mention the name Yirgacheffe again, YOU (as a consumer) may NEVER become familiar with it. It will be as foreign and outdated to you as the expression, THAT'S HOT™ (Paris Hilton). See, if she's the only one legally allowed to use that phrase, she ain't big enough and (believe it or not) doesn't get around enough to familiarize our community with her phrase. And we don't care. The English language will persevere without that phrase, and Paris Hilton will die a miserly old nobody.
Ridiculous example (and I don't even have a head injury). But you get the point.
MY question for Steve is this (again): If these trademarked terms do not pertain to a particular region, what is the definition for the flavor characteristics and plant types that the coffees must fall under in order to be considered within the trademark? And why aren't these things listed in the trademark filings?
I think, Steve, that you will find ONLY one qualification in the license agreement: "Licensee agrees to use the Marks on the label or packaging for any Products that contain 100% SIDAMO, YIRGACHEFFE, HARRAR, or HARAR coffee." (They may not be used to describe a blend.)
Nice definition.
In my next post, maybe I'll talk about this sentence from the license agreement: "In the event Licensor (Ethiopia) determines not to take action to protect the Marks against infringement or to remedy any infringement, Licensee (e.g. Starbucks), at its expense, may undertake legal action or other measures to protect the Marks against such infringement."
What did I tell you?
Oh, and Audra is correct. My description of you was supposed to be complimentary.
I have done a little research, not on the trademark issues with with Ethiopia and Light Years IP, but on the practice of protecting products that have special qualities because of their origin. I have specifically looked at Champagne, which led me to learn about other similar products (Burgundy, Jaffa oranges, Roquefort cheese, etc.).
As best as I can tell, these types of products have gotten protection through a treaty agreement process and individual political body protection (the EU) for their "geographical indication." It is not a trademark, per se. I don't believe they have gone through any licensing process.
What has happened is that the EU has recognized (and the United States is beginning to recognize--with products like Florida Oranges) that certain products--Champagne, for example,--have specific qualities and standards that have made those products distinctive. The region has excelled on that particular product. To protect the product from being diluted through the use of inferior products using that geographic origin, the EU has created protections for most of the European type geographic indicators, and other countries enter into agreements with the EU that such geographic indicators can only be used to describe products that actually come from that region.
For example, many of us may call sparkling wine, "Champagne." It is only allowed to be called, "Champagne," though, if it is truly from the Champagne region of France (with a few exceptions in the United States, which allow for the fact that the term "champagne" has become somewhat generic.--In the U.S., it is a "semi-generic" term, whatever that means).
This makes sense to me. Centuries of practice and tradition and effort have gone into the region's standard of quality. Not all sparkling wines (or coffees) are equal. Champagne--true Champagne--has specific standards developed by the producers (and put into written standards). It's the same as if a company developed a special sparkling wine using different processes and wanted to call it "Hamilton Hooch." There should be protection from other people using different or inferior products and calling it Hamilton Hooch, because that makes the brand created by the Hamilton company less valuable, and it is confusing to the consumer (all the good reasons that our intellectual property rights exist).
It makes a lot of sense to me to say to retailers, "You can't call a sparkling wine from California 'champagne,' because it's not from Champagne." Likewise, it makes a LOT of sense to me that Starbucks shouldn't be able to mix several coffees from Africa and call it "Yirgacheffe." But I haven't yet found (I confess I haven't looked that hard yet) another situation where that protection has been provided by trademarking the name of an entire region. The protection is provided through individual treaties and agreements between countries, and sometimes the government of origin gets involved in creating a sort of "stamp of approval" that labels a particular product "worthy" of the mark of the region based upon set standards.
I also have not found that there is any licensure required, after the fact, to sell the product. There may be, but I haven't found it yet. So the protection seems to be as it ought to be: You cannot sell this product and call it Champagne unless it truly is from Champagne. Not--This is truly Champagne, from Champagne, but you can't sell it or market it as such unless you enter into a licensure. That is an enormous distinction, in my mind.
From what I've seen from Brian's research (I haven't looked at the USPTO stuff yet--it makes my already-injured brain hurt), there are no standards that say what the particular qualities of these Ethiopian coffees must be in order to be worthy of the mark. I suspect that is true because there is WIDE variation in the processing of these coffees. I, for one, love that. I love it that the MAO Sidamo Horse tasted like blueberries, whereas the Sidamo we've been drinking after that (sorry Brian, I can't remember, 'cause, you know, brain damage) doesn't and has completely different tastes. I like it that we don't know what the new Yirgacheffe is going to taste like until we get it in our little mouths. It's all been excellent, but different. I don't really want Ethiopia to standardize the growing and processing of its coffee, because I like tasting the workers' different efforts. That's what it is, you know. I am tasting the different recipes of these farmers and workers. And I like it that way. We just wish we could pay them for that.
But this lack of standardization ought to make it much harder for you and Ethiopia to get any kind of protection, which is the other part of this problem. Even if trademarking a region's name is permitted, you should have to explain why your product is so distinctive as to warrant that mark, which requires some standardization. Selfishly, I hope you don't develop it.
Back to my original research, though, if protecting the mark of Ethiopian coffees was your goal (and that OUGHT to be the goal of any company or organization seeking intellectual property protection), why not have gone through this process of geographic indication protection through treaties and such? Is it the lack of political power of Ethiopia as compared to, say, the EU?
Here are some links to my research (Sorry, don't know how to html this in a comment, so you'll have to cut and paste into the web browser).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indication (wikipedia on geographical indivation)
http://iplaw.blogs.com/content/2005/12/location_matter.html (blog on "geographic indicators" issue for wine)
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=184 (discussing branding of geographical areas)
Audra Hamilton
We hadn't heard from Steve Williams for a while, and it turns out he was on vacation. He's back now and sent me an email, which I'll post here:
I'm now back from my holiday so wanted to drop you a quick line of response. I don't want to sign up for a google/blogger account as is required to comment directly on the thread, so if you'd be so kind as to post this for me I would be grateful.
Thanks for posting my reply to your earlier blog. As I mentioned, it was a personal response rather than an 'official' one, which I thought was appropriate under the circumstances.
There are some interesting comments from other readers and I'm happy to address them individually via email to
steve@ethiopiancoffeenetwork.com
This is simply to enable me to deal with each question/point to the best of my ability, addressing them all in a single response would be I feel be very unwieldy and not the best method for clarity on each point.
I look forward to hearing from anyone who wishes to continue discussing things further.
Steve Williams
Light Years IP
What do you think of that? I'm sad that we can ask valid questions openly but the answers must be given quietly, behind closed doors. Maybe you all could email Steve with your questions and post the questions/answers here in the comments of this blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home