Trademark and Ethiopian coffee beans - score one for the little guy | Hacker News Reader

Trademark and Ethiopian coffee beans - score one for the little guy

tacticalip.com

14 pointsgrellas16 comments

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.

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...

> Trademarking regional products is a big thing in Europe with its many centuries-old food traditions.

They're like trademarks, but geographic distinctions are technically a legally distinct concept in most parts of Europe. Sounds like that's not the case in the US, which seems odd.

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".

Champagne, anyone?

Shouldn't be allowed either, since there is no difference between that and the stuff browed the same way just across the border.

I don't know if I want to agree or not with the premise of this conversation thread.

If everything about A is the same as B except for where it was made, shouldn't A be allowed to label itself as belonging to the same category as B? Yes.

On the other hand, if this were allowed (and location were the only difference), the following is possible / likely:

Champagne becomes "Genuine Champagne Champagne". Or "official" champagne becomes a commercial entity, with a different name, and the category itself is left to go wherever it will. All we've done there is lose the specificity that Champagne had, as well as the ability for new wineries in Champagne to make Champagne (because now "official" champagne is a company's brand name), and for what gain?

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

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?

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

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)?

Exclusivity.

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

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.

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.

If I was Starbucks I would just rebrand the beans. For example, they could be called after a tribe who lives in the region, or after a mountain that the beans grow on, or whatever.

It's not as if any of their customers are ever going to search "Sidamo" on the map.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com