starbucks vs ethiopia case study

The Coffee War: Ethiopia and the Starbucks Story

The Ethiopian economy is heavily dependent on the trade of its primary products. Among the country’s limited tradable goods, coffee alone generates about 60 percent of Ethiopia’s total export earnings. Indeed, coffee is closely tied to the culture and society of Ethiopia and an estimated 15 million people are directly or indirectly involved in the Ethiopian coffee industry.

Some of the world’s finest coffees, such as Harrar®, Sidamo® and Yirgacheffee®, originate in Ethiopia. These coffees have a unique flavor and aroma that distinguish them from coffees of other countries or even from other coffees of Ethiopia. This African nation enjoys a strong reputation for its heritage coffees which command a very high retail price in the international market. However, only 5 to 10 percent of the retail price actually goes back to Ethiopia; most of the profit is shared by distributors and middlemen in the marketing sector. In wealthy countries, a cup of cappuccino may be sold at US$ 4, but many coffee growers in Ethiopia and other developing countries earn less than a dollar a day. There are instances where farmers abandoned coffee production due to low returns and engaged in growing more profitable narcotic plants.

Seeking to narrow down this gap between the retail price and the return to the producers, the Ethiopian government is trying to use a range of intellectual property rights (IPRs) to differentiate their coffee in the market place and achieve higher returns. In 2004, the government launched the Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative (the Initiative) to provide a practical solution to overcome the longstanding divide between what coffee farmers receive for a sack of their beans and what retailers charge for that coffee when they sell it in retail outlets in different countries.

The Initiative is organized and run by the Ethiopian Fine Coffee Stakeholder Committee (the Stakeholder Committee) – a consortium comprising cooperatives, private exporters and the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) as well as other concerned government bodies.

IP Management

The EIPO took the leadership of the Initiative and began working on identifying a mechanism which would lead to a greater share for the country’s coffee growers. The Initiative also intended to generate high retail prices for Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe – the three most famous coffee brands of Ethiopia. “The theory is: make the pie bigger. Let the market pay,” explained Mr. Getachew Mengistie, former Director General of the EIPO. “Rather than focusing on short term gain, this way we can enlist the big companies to do what we don’t have the skills or financial means for – that is, building recognition of our brands in international markets and so increasing long term demand for them.”

The key strategy, the Stakeholder Committee agreed, was to achieve wider recognition of the distinctive qualities of Ethiopian coffees as brands and so position them strategically in the expanding specialty coffee market; while at the same time to protect Ethiopia’s ownership of the names so as to prevent their misappropriation. This would lead to a greater share of the high retail price Ethiopian coffees demand going straight to rural producers.

The Ethiopian government had to make a decision on how to best use IPRs to obtain exclusive ownership of Ethiopian coffee names, achieve wider international recognition and maximize returns. At first glance, registration of each Ethiopian coffee as a geographical indication (GI) might seem to be the best course of action. After all, the coffees are made in Ethiopia and named after the regions that made them famous. However, there are many unique circumstances surrounding specialty coffee production in Ethiopia that actually make GI registrations less suitable than other forms of intellectual property (IP) protection. As Mr. Mengistie explained, “setting up a certification system would have been impracticable and too expensive.”

Used to indicate the regional origin of a particular product, a GI registration must demonstrate a link between a characteristic of the product and the region where it is produced. If each Ethiopian specialty coffee were registered as a GI it would have to be produced in a specific area of the country under specific circumstances. For example, a GI for Sidamo coffee would require every bag of Sidamo to be produced, processed or prepared in the Sidamo region and have a special quality that is directly dependent on the unique properties of the region. A GI also requires that the government oversee producers and distributors to guarantee that the coffees sold belong to a particular style or region, such as Sidamo.

However, this is not a practical solution for Ethiopia. Specialty coffee in Ethiopia is grown on over four million small plots of land by an estimated 600,000 independent farmers spread throughout the country in remote areas. Although Ethiopian coffees such as Sidamo and Harrar are named after specific regions, all of it is not produced in the same region under the same circumstances. Distribution is also a problem, as it is predominately done informally by hauling bags of coffee on foot for many kilometers. Government oversight of coffee producers is therefore nearly impossible. Farmers would be required to pay a surcharge for government oversight, and this would only be an additional burden on them, many of who are already living below the subsistence level. Therefore the very nature of coffee production in Ethiopia makes GI certification difficult and impractical.

The government of Ethiopia decided that instead of trying to protect Ethiopian coffee’s geographical origin, it would be better to protect its commercial origin, which it would do through registering trademarks. This was seen as a more direct route of protection because it would grant the government of Ethiopia the legal right to exploit, license and use the trademarked names in relation to coffee goods to the exclusion of all other traders. Unlike a GI, a trademark registration does not require a specific coffee to be produced in a specific region or have a particular quality in connection with that region. Using trademark registrations, the government of Ethiopia could then produce greater quantities of specialty coffees from all over the country. Rural producers outside the Sidamo region could grow Sidamo coffee, as it would not need to have a characteristic that is unique to the Sidamo region. The Stakeholder Committee therefore opted for a trademark-based solution, with the Ethiopian government as the owner of these marks. This strategy gave the Ethiopian government greater and more effective control over the distribution of its product, which ultimately increases revenue by exporting more goods, enabling a rise in prices and benefits to farmers.

The EIPO began filing applications to register the names Harrar/Harar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe as trademarks in key markets. In the United States, Yirgacheffe was the first to obtain registration; Sidamo and Harrar / Harar were granted registration at a later time. Trademarks for Ethiopian coffees are also registered in the European Union and Canada . In Japan, registration certificates have been secured for two of the coffees (Yirgacheffe and Sidamo). The EIPO has filed applications for trademark registrations of these three coffees in a number of other countries including Australia, Brazil, China, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

IP Dispute Resolution

The trademark strategy for Ethiopian coffee faced a major difficulty in 2006. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had approved the application to register Yirgacheffe . But the National Coffee Association (NCA), representing coffee roasters of the United States, objected to the EIPO’s applications to trademark first Harrar, then Sidamo. The grounds for opposition in both cases were that the names had become too generic a description of coffee, and as such were not eligible for registration under United States trademark law. The USPTO turned down the application for Harrar in 2005 and for Sidamo in 2006.

The American coffee chain Starbucks Coffee Corporation, which was widely reported in the media to have been a driving force behind the NCA objection, publicly offered to assist the EIPO in setting up a national system of certification marks to enable the farmers to protect and market their coffee as “robust” geographical indications. “These systems are far more effective than registering trademarks for geographically descriptive terms, which is actually contrary to general trademark law and customs,” said the company in a statement. But the EIPO and its advisors disagreed. The designations, they argued, referred not to geographical locations but to distinctive coffee types. Moreover, appropriate intellectual property (IP) tools had to be chosen to meet specific needs and situations. “You have to understand the situation in Ethiopia,” Mr. Mengistie of EIPO explained. “Our coffee is grown on four million very small plots of land. Setting up a certification system would have been impracticable and too expensive. Trademarking was more appropriate to our needs. It was a more direct route offering more control.”

The EIPO filed rebuttals against the USPTO decisions with supporting evidence to demonstrate that the terms Harrar and Sidamo had acquired distinctiveness. Meanwhile, both Starbucks and the Ethiopian government were keen to resolve their differences quickly and find a flexible way forward. Their joint efforts led to an announcement in 2006 that they had reached a mutually satisfactory agreement regarding the distribution, marketing and licensing of Ethiopia’s specialty coffee designations, which provided a framework for cooperation to promote recognition of Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe.

Starbucks agreed to sign voluntary trademark licensing agreements which immediately acknowledge Ethiopia’s ownership of the Harrar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe names, regardless of whether or not a trademark registration has been granted. Legal commentators have honed in on the use of the term “designation” in the agreement as a means of circumventing the obstacle caused by the status of the Harrar and Sidamo applications. “Yes,” acknowledges Mr. Mengistie, “designation is used here as a broader term than trademark, to encompass some of the trademarks that are still pending registration. It is not related to certification.”

In August 2006, the USPTO informed the EIPO that their rebuttal in the case of Harar had been successful. A trademark for Sidamo was also granted in February 2008.

Financing and Partnerships

The Initiative secured financial support from the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom, technical advice from a Washington-based non-governmental organization (NGO), Light Years IP, and legal assistance from an American law firm, Arnold and Porter.

The high cost of legal services for foreign trademark registration created some initial difficulties. Ethiopia, moreover, is not a member of the Madrid system for the international registration of marks. This was overcome by support from law firms which agreed to provide their services pro bono.

After acquiring the trademarks, Ethiopia initiated a royalty-free licensing scheme. The purpose of licensing, according to Mr. Mengistie, is “to secure recognition from the coffee distribution industry that Ethiopia owns and controls the use of trademarks, thereby building the reputation and good will of its specialty coffees around the trademarks.” The government of Ethiopia wanted its coffee to have more market visibility so that the export premium for Ethiopian specialty coffee could be raised. The adopted strategy offered royalty-free license agreements and required the licensee to sell the specialty coffees using the registered trademarks (free of charge) on any product that consists wholly of Ethiopian specialty coffees and to promote Ethiopian fine coffee by educating their customers. The licensing strategy is expected to boost consumer recognition of Ethiopian coffee trademarks and facilitate the growth of the demand for Ethiopian fine coffees. This strategy will ensure that Ethiopian farmers and small businessmen secure a reasonable return from the sale of their coffees. Information on the Initiative as well as licensing is made publicly available through a dedicated website.

By mid-2009, almost one hundred license agreements have been concluded with coffee importing, roasting and distributing companies in North America, Europe, Japan and South Africa. Within the country, some forty seven private coffee exporters and three coffee producer cooperative unions in Ethiopia have also signed the agreement.

The high profile dispute with Starbucks increased the popularity of Ethiopian coffee. The media coverage had the effect of greatly increasing public knowledge of, and interest in, Ethiopia’s coffees. “Partly because of this recognition, we have begun to see increases in their price,” says Mr. Mengistie. “I learned from the coffee farmers' cooperatives and exporters just three months ago that the price of Yirgacheffe had already increased by $ 0.60 cents to $ 2 a pound.”

Immediately after the resolution of the dispute, the stakeholders of Ethiopian coffee focused their attention on the need for a marketing strategy. They opted for a well-organized branding instrument. A United Kingdom-based company was given the responsibility of the brand promotion of Ethiopian coffee. The company worked together with the stakeholders and developed the brands and brand guidelines which were approved in July 2008. Under this approach, a total of four brands were created: an umbrella brand with the name “Ethiopian Fine Coffee” and three individual brands entitled “Harar Ethiopian Fine Coffee,” “Yirgacheffe Ethiopian Fine Coffee” and “Sidamo Ethiopian Fine Coffee”. Artistically-designed logos for each of the brand names were also created.

Business Results

The Initiative has helped Ethiopia to differentiate Ethiopian coffees from coffees of other countries, which strengthened the confidence and bargaining position of the coffee growers and exporters of the country. There is an increasing demand for Ethiopian fine coffee in the world market. The novelty of the Initiative is that it enabled the growers and producers to become part of price setters instead of being price takers.

These changes have had marked positive results in terms of increased income and improved living standards of the coffee producers. Prior to the IP protection initiative, Ethiopia was receiving a scanty 6 percent of the final retail price for its coffees. Against the average final retail price ranging from US$ 20 to 28 per kilogram, the farmers were receiving as little as US$ 1 per kilogram. The trademarking and licensing scheme immensely helped improve the situation: Yirgacheffe farmers’ income doubled in 2007 in comparison with their income in 2006, with estimation that over the years the producers could secure their income at around US $6-8 per kilogram. Overall, Ethiopia’s total coffee exports are expected to reach the level of US $1.2-1.6 billion as opposed to a meager US $400 million prior to the Initiative.

Impacts of the Ethiopian Initiative

The Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative set a new dimension in the buyer-seller relationship. The significance of the Initiative is likely to go not only beyond the coffee trade, but also beyond the borders of Ethiopia. Producers of primary goods in many developing countries often receive only marginal returns. The Initiative has created the momentum for change and bears the potential to offer more feasible ways to improve the commercial prospects and financial returns for marginal producers of coffee or other similar commodities. For developing countries, a new frontier is set to leverage benefits from their IP assets. 

September 3, 2010

Related stories

Using WIPO's Madrid System to Protect Trademarks Abroad – A Trademark Lawyers' Perspective

May 13, 2024

Microlino – An Electric Microcar with a Functional Design

April 26, 2024

Exobrooch: IPMC Helping Fashion Startup Protect Its Innovative Designs

April 25, 2024

Mother-of-Pearl Jewelry and Natural Beauty Products from Fiji

April 2, 2024

Starbucks v. Ethiopia

September 15, 2008 John Feffer , Kim Fellner

Editor’s Note: The following is a book excerpt from Kim Fellner’s Wrestling With Starbucks (Rutgers University Press, 2008).

Tadesse Meskela, general manager of the Oromia Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union in Ethiopia, an organization of 115 cooperatives representing more than 102,000 coffee growers, apparently had mixed feelings about Starbucks. In an interview transcript from a June 2006 Starbucks meeting on African coffees, he spoke warmly about the company’s role in advancing the well-being of Ethiopian coffee farmers: “This year we sold more coffee to Starbucks and they paid us a very good price, which is better than Fair Trade price. So we want this type of pricing for our coffees to improve the lives of coffee growers.”

Yet there he was in Black Gold , a documentary released that year to wide acclaim. Filmed between 2003 and 2005, it followed Tadesse’s valiant struggle to increase the income that Ethiopian coffee farmers realize from their crops. It also featured Starbucks as villain, implying that the company made its millions off the backs of poor farmers.

For a while Dub Hay, Starbucks’ senior vice president for coffee purchasing, wondered if Tadesse had been unaware that the film was going to portray Starbucks as a bad guy. After all, the company had been involved with Ethiopia for more than thirty years, even before the arrival of Howard Schultz, and had been buying coffee from the Oromia Farmers Union since 2003. But Dub hoped in vain. Tadesse was in fact a man on a mission; and in the fall of 2006, he emerged as a key spokesperson for the Ethiopian government and for the international anti-poverty NGO Oxfam. Their prime demand was that Starbucks recognize Ethiopia’s right to trademark the names of its gourmet coffee regions. “Coffee shops can sell Sidamo and Harar coffees for up to $26 a pound because of the beans’ specialty status,” Tadesse said in an Oxfam press release. “But Ethiopian coffee farmers only earn between sixty cents to $1.10 for their crop, barely enough to cover the cost of production. I think most people would see that as an injustice.”

If Starbucks felt betrayed by the two faces of Tadesse, Tadesse felt betrayed by the two faces of Starbucks. Yes, it pays better than fair trade prices and is arguably the most ethical major coffee company in the world. But it also uses its reputation to avoid sharing real power.

Global Coffee

The conflict over Ethiopia’s right to trademark its coffee lasted for roughly two years and involved three continents, a slew of public demonstrations, and a steady stream of media reports. The themes echoed those that had ignited the 1999 Battle of Seattle: economic relations between the global south and the global north and the role of corporations in translating capitalism for performance on the world stage. While flat-worlders like New York Times columnist and author Thomas Friedman enthused over the opportunities, not to mention the inevitabilities, of globalization, detractors saw it as a new version of imperialism, a way for the north to munch up both material and cultural assets. “Do we really need a Starbucks on every corner of every city in the world?” asked political theorist Benjamin Barber in the Philanthropy News Digest . “That’s not economic competition; that’s cultural monopoly, and it ends up destroying local cultures.” Even Friedman acknowledged that, without some pushback, the “electronic herd” of global finance will turn indigenous culture “into a global mush, and their environment into a global mash.”

By 2006 Starbucks was certainly a global player. Though Schultz originally conceived of the company as a vehicle to import coffeehouse culture to the United States, he soon discovered he could export his own version back to Europe and to anywhere else in the world that seemed ready for the Starbucks coffee experience. As he told his shareholders at the 2006 annual meeting, “In 1996, we began to dream we could be an international business”; and that same year the company opened its first overseas store, in Tokyo. By 1999 Starbucks was solidifying its presence in Britain and aiming to have five hundred European stores by the end of 2003. By early 2006 , Starbucks had more than 3,000 company-owned and licensed stores outside the United States in thirty-seven countries. Its feet were firmly planted in China, its toes testing the market in Brazil, its eyes turned toward India. To Starbucks, this behavior was in no way predatory. The company was merely sharing the delight of Starbucks at an international level and, of course, increasing the bottom line.

There were difficulties, of course. In China, state news anchor Rui Cheggang took aim at a Starbucks store lodged in a corner of the imperial palace of the Forbidden City, calling it “a symbol of low-end U.S. food culture” and “an insult to Chinese civilization” and generating a torrent of response that pitted cultural nationalism against imperialism in round after round of heated blogging. And sometimes the war of words concerned real wars. One set of bloggers castigated Schultz as a Zionist and accused Starbucks of anti-Arab bias, while others condemned Starbucks for closing its Israeli outlets. In fact, Starbucks had closed its stores in Israel because of poor management and performance, while maintaining numerous stores in Arab countries; and Schultz, in real life, appeared to favor a two-state solution. In 2006, when fighting in Lebanon temporarily shut down the Beirut Starbucks, the company continued to pay staff wages and benefits throughout the conflict.

Ethiopia’s Strategy

Ethiopia is blisteringly poor country, ranked at 170 out of 177 countries in the 2005 United Nations Development Program Human Development Report. More than 25 percent of its people survive on less than a dollar a day; the average per-capita gross domestic product is less than 1,000 dollars. Although the country produces barely 6 percent of the world’s coffee, more than 1.5 million smallholders grow the crop, which sustains 15 million people and accounts for 40 to 60 percent of the country’s total exports. A significant percentage of the crop (estimates vary widely, depending on whom you ask, from a low of 15 percent to a high of 45 percent) is specialty coffee from the Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe regions, all prized for their quality and unique flavor.

In 2006 Starbucks purchased fewer than 10 million pounds of coffee from those regions, the equivalent of 2 to 3 percent of the company’s worldwide coffee purchases and a relatively small percentage of Ethiopia’s total coffee exports. Most of the nation’s coffee ends up on the arabica commodities market, where world overproduction has kept prices low. Moreover, because the country has no port, coffee must travel 1,000 miles to be shipped from Djibouti on the Gulf of Aden. In short, low prices and high marketing costs, combined with an outdated coffee auction system and a weak infrastructure, mean that most small coffee farmers stay poor.

To combat this destitution, the Ethiopian government decided in early 2005 to pursue an innovative strategy: it wanted to trademark, or brand, the names Harar/Harrar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe to command a greater share of the prices that its best coffees fetched at the retail end in the global north. With trademarks, the country could charge distributors a licensing fee for their use. The European Union, Japan, and Canada all approved this trademark scheme. But when the Ethiopian intellectual property office approached the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register Sidamo, they were surprised to discover that something called Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo was already in the pipeline. Starbucks had gotten there ahead of Ethiopia, and the patent office refused to consider another trademark that included Sidamo.

Trouble began when the Ethiopian government tried to contact Starbucks to resolve the matter. Yet the origins of the conflict were innocent enough. In 2002, Starbucks had approached the Fero Farmers Cooperative in Ethiopia and asked members to experiment with a different way of processing their coffee. Dub Hay explained, “We took the cherry, did not ferment or process it, just put it on drying beds and let it dry in the sun. There’s mucilage around the seeds, and when you don’t wash that off and allow it to sit, some of that flavor and the sugars are absorbed in the bean. It’s more bold, more up front, not as crisp, clean, or lemony, but you get all these wild flavors.”

It wasn’t an instant success. “We had to convince the farmer co-op it would be a good experiment, and the first year we did it, it was a complete disaster,” Hay recalled. “The coffee was undrinkable. We didn’t have all perfectly ripe berries, so some of the flavors were bad. We paid them for the 40,000 pounds of coffee and threw it away. But we convinced them to try again using only perfectly ripe beans, and we got this unique flavor; I’d never tasted anything like it. We asked the co-op to help us name it and called it Shirkina Sun-dried Sidamo, Shirkina meaning “partnership” in the local language. It became a Black Apron special and was a huge partner and customer favorite.” At this point Starbucks applied to the U.S. Patent Office for the right to trademark Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo.

Copyrighting Coffee?

Most of us are generally familiar with the notion of copyrighting original literary and artistic work, patenting inventions, and trademarking brand names and logos. According to the Patent Office, “A trademark includes any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from goods manufactured or sold by others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name.” But as a new era of global trade has developed under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization, a new raft of intellectual property laws has also emerged. Known as Trade Related Aspects of International Property (TRIPs), they were passed in 1995 to prevent entities (mostly in developing nations) from stealing or misusing corporations’ intellectual property. TRIPs place the burdens and costs of enforcement on the poorer countries. Yet its proponents argued that strict adherence would encourage affluent nations to lavish their poor cousins with new business ventures and inventions to address problems of hunger and health.

Nor surprisingly, however, the results are hardly salubrious. In addition to normal corporate battles to protect brand and lucre, there have also been breathtakingly venal moves to assert dominion over various kinds of property. Most notorious have been the efforts of big pharmaceutical companies to protect drug patents against the development of cheaper generics to treat HIV/AIDS and cancer. Although the TRIPs had originally included a few safeguards so that developing nations could produce generics, companies such as Novartis and Pfizer have lobbied to weaken even these modest protections. They argue that the monetary rewards promised by intellectual property are necessary to encourage scientific innovation. India, which rejected the patent for a cancer drug because a similar generic was available at one-tenth the cost, has been sued by Novartis to capitulate.

The story is similar in agriculture, where Monsanto has become a monster, harvesting seeds for subsistence crops such as maize, rice, and cotton from developing countries and then subjecting those seeds to genetic engineering. The new seeds, ostensibly engineered to withstand disease and produce higher yields, are then resold to the very same countries. The genetically engineered strains supplant heritage varieties and are often bred to germinate for one year only, forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year rather than save part of the crop for replanting. In other cases, farmers in the origin countries are prohibited by law from creating their own supply. Thus, Monsanto both wipes out native species and forces poorer nations into greater dependence and poverty.

Starbucks’ invocation of intellectual property laws has been less disastrous, but it’s often been silly. A number of conflicts have arisen over store names deemed too similar to Starbucks’ own. Targets have included tiny Sambucks in Astoria, Oregon; HaidaBucks on Queen Charlotte Island in Canada; and Starstrucks in India. This seems rather like the lord of the manor pursuing poachers: both predatory and petty. But Starbucks also protects particular blends or products. You would, for example, be unwise to market Gazebo blend coffee or a Frappuccino. Thus, the Ethiopian situation was a notable reversal in the pattern. When the company tried to brand its new method of processing Sidamo beans, it was accused not of overzealous trademark enforcement but of stealing Ethiopia’s birthright.

Ron Layton, an attorney from New Zealand, has developed and promoted intriguing ideas on the use of intellectual property as a tool for development in the global south and started a company called Light Years IP to advance the work. In a 2004 World Bank publication titled Poor People’s Knowledge , he argues that intellectual property provides more profit than manufacturing and agriculture do: “The IP laws, although somewhat disadvantageous to developing countries, are available for enforcement in the developed markets. Fair trade interventions offer the needed model for market access and delivery systems that ensure that revenues from IP exports do alleviate poverty.”

In The Coffee Paradox , authors Daviron and Ponte note that specialty coffee commands high retail prices not because of its tangible qualities but because of the symbolic qualities of the brand or experience. Ironically, they find, the higher the quality of the coffee, the lower the percentage of its retail price that goes to farmers. So long as farmers in producing countries sell commodities and distributors in consuming countries sell brands, the suppliers at the beginning of the chain will suffer increasing income disparity; they can only change the equation by capturing some of that intangible value for the countries of origin.

“It’s not really value-added,” Ron Layton corrected me when I used the term. “I call it ‘value inherent.’ We are shifting away from competing as a commodity to the inherent value of the coffee. If you have a shirt by a major designer and an identical one from an unknown, what makes you pay two hundred dollars for one and not the other? It’s the brand, the nonphysical enhancement . . . So we realized there’s a big intangible value to this coffee that they’re not getting a share of, and how do we get hold of that?”

Ethiopian coffee was a test of the intellectual property approach: the names of the indigenous coffees were already somewhat familiar in the developed world, and fair trade models were already in play. Layton and his firm assisted the newly formed Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office and its director Getachew Mengistie to formulate a plan that led them to the U.S. Patent Office, to Starbucks’ Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo, and to the company’s wall of silence.

No one at Starbucks is willing to say how this happened, but unfortunately for all concerned the original correspondence from the Ethiopian embassy was routed to an intellectual property attorney in the Starbucks legal department and was ignored by anyone whose viewpoint might have transcended legal considerations. Beginning in March 2005, K. E. Kassahum Ayele, a former Ethiopian ambassador to the United States, tried to meet with Howard Schultz to resolve the issue of the Shirkina application. He received only a curt response from a company attorney and an invitation to a dinner honoring Schultz. A press release from the Ethiopian embassy quoted Ayele as saying, “I asked to engage in substantive discussion with Mr. Schultz on the issues, not to have a debate with a lawyer and attend award ceremonies. I expected reasonable consideration and friendly dialogue, but was shocked at Starbucks’ refusal to meet and to discuss the situation.”

The Oxfam Intervention

Then Oxfam stepped onto the scene. The U.K.-based nonprofit describes itself as a “development, relief, and campaigning organization that works with others to find lasting solutions to poverty and suffering around the world.” With the millennium coffee crisis, Oxfam’s “Make Trade Fair” campaign focused on the plight of coffee growers.

In the past, Starbucks and Oxfam had been wary partners in several small projects. For instance, they had collaborated to help a small Mexican farmers’ cooperative improve the quality of its fair trade coffee; and in 2004 Starbucks U.K. had contributed 179,000 dollars to a jointly sponsored rural development effort that included irrigation and women’s literacy programs in Ethiopia’s East Hararge region. To avoid the appearance and prevent the reality of selling out, each party reserved the right to criticize the other. At the time of the East Hararge effort, Phil Bloomer of Oxfam U.K. told the Financial Times , “We want to maintain a constructive and critical relationship with Starbucks. We hope they’ll challenge us, and we know we’ll continue to challenge them.”

When the Ethiopian trademark became an issue, the moment of challenge arrived. Seth Petchers, head of Oxfam America’s coffee campaign, knew one of Ron Layton’s Light Years staff members and had been following the new strategy with interest. “In the spring of 2005,” he told me, “I got a call from Light Years and the Ethiopian government, expressing frustration about not being able to get in touch with Starbucks. Since we knew about coffee and had a relationship with the company, we got involved.”

Oxfam and Starbucks tell somewhat conflicting stories about communications during the eighteen months between Ethiopia’s first effort to talk with the company and Oxfam’s public campaign to change the company’s mind. It rapidly became apparent, however, that the issue involved more than miscommunication. Starbucks did not want to sign a licensing agreement. “It’s not a good solution, and the details are unacceptable,” Dub Hay protested to me early in the conflict. “We’d have to consult with them about how we package and market our coffee. It’s just not tenable. And there’s no guarantee that the fees would ever reach the farmers. It’s not good for them either.”

The company expressed agreement with the underlying goal of getting more money to the Ethiopian farmers but advocated instead a geographic certification, or appellationsomething comparable to the name protections granted to Wisconsin cheddar and French champagne. Certification would allow Ethiopia to protect the product’s good name and authenticity. Yet as its advocates pointed out, the appellation approach relies on market demand to set higher prices rather than paying direct fees for use of a name.

According to Oxfam, both the farmers’ welfare and Starbucks’ own reputation were indisputable arguments for signing the licensing agreement. By obstructing the trademark filing, the company was depriving Ethiopia of critical additional revenues, a figure that advocates estimated at 88 million dollars roughly eighty cents more per pound of coffee. There were also behind-the-scenes discussions at the Specialty Coffee Association of America (SCAA) and the National Coffee Association (NCA); and reports of those discussions slipped into advocates’ hands and into cyberspace, alleging that Starbucks was obstructing the trademark filings while publicly denying any such role.

Yet there’s ample evidence that many association members agreed that licensing was a bad idea. “Ethiopia got some very poor advice from both the marketing and legal standpoint” was the personal assessment of Ted Lingle, former director of SCAA. “No one wants to beat up on the Ethiopian farmer; there’s no PR value that comes out of that. But the specialty market doesn’t really need Ethiopian coffees.” He noted that, out of 3 or 4 million bags of coffee from Ethiopia, perhaps half a million are high-end coffees. “The world has otherwise thought of them as a Brazil substitute, a commercial supply. Their market reputation really isn’t much, and now they feel they can inflate what little they have. The market is not going to support it. The effort is misguided and doomed to fail.”

Nonetheless, in 2006 Oxfam and Light Years convened a cadre of progressive advocates, including Co-op America and Catholic Relief Services; they envisioned a “big noise” strategy waged with street demonstrations, letter-writing campaigns, and a heated Internet presence to pressure Starbucks into an agreement. These factors alone would have been enough to create a collision course. But Starbucks was about to be hit from another quarter as well. In 2003, two young British filmmakers, Marc and Nick Francis, decided to make a documentary on how the poverty crisis in Ethiopia was intersecting with the coffee industry. Nick Francis told me:

I first went to Ethiopia in 1997, and when I was there, I was thinking, “I’m in the birthplace of coffee, yet this is one of the poorest countries. How can that be?” Then in 2003, we learned that Ethiopia was facing another famine, like the one in ’84 that led to the Live Aid concert. But unlike ’84, even the richest coffee-growing areas were caught up in the crisis. At the same time, we were seeing more and more coffee shops everywhere, in Britain, in the U.S. There was this mushrooming coffee industry, but the people who grew it were in this absolute humanitarian emergency. We wanted to make the connection between the two, between the coffee-consuming public and the growers.

The result of their two-year odyssey was Black Gold, which premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on January 24, 2006, generating a buzz of its own. The documentary follows Tadesse Meskela from the Ethiopian coffee fields and the Oromia offices in Addis Ababa to the trade shows of Europe and the United States to seek a market for the beans. “We wanted to feature a protagonist from Africa who is out there doing something rather than waiting for charity and goodwill,” Nick explained. For the filmmakers, Tadesse’s work challenged our western notion that Africa survives solely on aid from the developed world.

By way of the farmers in the cooperative and Tadesse’s efforts on their behalf, the film exposes the web of trade regulations that keep farmers in developing countries poor, even while transnational corporations in the global north prosper. Women painstakingly sort millions of beans; and viewers observe the hunger and substandard housing that accompany poverty. Juxtaposed with these images are the cosmopolitan cafés of Europe and America, the comfort of conspicuous consumption, the places of commerce where deprivation in one part of the globe is turned into the wealth of another.

And like most recent efforts to hold the coffee industry accountable for the plight of the farmers, the film can’t resist featuring Starbucks as a predatory Goliath. In a scene praised by Washington Post film reviewer Ann Hornaday, the camera pays a call on the original Starbucks store at Seattle’s Pike Place Market, where two ever-so-bubbly baristas welcome the crew. Hornaday comments, “During the film’s most painful sequence, his [Tadesse’s] efforts and Ethiopia’s persistent, crushing famine are juxtaposed with the vapidly cheerful corp-speak of two Starbucks baristas.”

Yes, the baristas are excessively perky as they purvey coffee and the Starbucks experience; yet they are also model employees, supportive of each other, efficient, and proud of their company. At the time of the filming, the young women were entertaining a tour from the Specialty Coffee Association, to which the filmmakers had attached themselves to avoid asking Starbucks or its employees for permission to film. How could these young women know that they would be featured as unwitting symbols of the harm that transnational coffee giants inflict on poor Ethiopian farmers? At the progressive screening I attended, they were also the objects of disparaging audience laughter. Great, I thought. Because these Brit filmmakers couldn’t, or wouldn’t, interview Howard Schultz, they’re making two low-wage workers the target of their comparison.

Nick assured me this wasn’t his intention: “People are laughing at what they’re saying, like ‘Starbucks touches people’s lives all over the world,’ not at who’s saying it. The intention is not to mistreat them but to illuminate the issues, because they are the foot soldiers.” He said that the filmmakers had spent six months trying to interview someone from Starbucks for the film, to no avail. Former director of media relations Audrey Lincoff recalled meeting the filmmakers after a conference presentation and told me they had once asked to interview Schultz on very short notice, which he was unable to accommodate. The filmmakers claim that subsequent calls went unanswered. The final frames of the film say that the big-four coffee transnationals and Starbucks refused to comment.

When I noted that Starbucks, which buys just a small percentage of Ethiopian coffee, had been made the villain of the piece rather than Nestlé, Proctor & Gamble, Kraft, and Sara Lee, which buy exponentially more coffee, Nick suggested that my cultural bias was influencing my viewpoint. “The film isn’t about Starbucks,” he insisted. “They’re a very tiny part. It’s just that in the U.S. people look for Starbucks; it’s the cultural reference point that gets illuminated. It’s very much a lifestyle, and people may see it as a critique of their own lifestyle choice.” Nevertheless, the film sent a far sharper message about Starbucks than it did about the companies more accountable for Ethiopia’s plight. And with the conflict about trademarks mushrooming, Black Gold itself had struck gold: the filmmakers had received the perfect media hook for their film, and they lost no time in making it part of their publicity campaign.

Growing Criticism

Starbucks’ response to the film was curiously flat-footed. At the beginning of June 2006, the company held an African Coffee Celebration, touting the continent’s gourmet coffees and implicitly Starbucks’ good works. Although the producers of Black Gold suggest this was purely an effort to counter the bad publicity generated by their film, the event had actually been planned many months earlier, and Tadesse Meskela had been invited to participate. As it turns out, Tadesse did speak at the Starbucks event, praising the company’s prices and projects in Ethiopia. Then he attended the Seattle screening of Black Gold , where he condemned the company’s perfidy. Meanwhile, although the Starbucks staff had seen the film, no one seems to have approached Tadesse to acknowledge or discuss his concerns or explore ways to blunt the mounting crisis.

There were other missed opportunities. Not only had the coffee purchasing department been working with Tadesse and his cooperative for a number of years, but Seth Petchers of Oxfam and Starbucks vice president Sue Mecklenburg had developed a working relationship during prior collaborations. Both Petchers and Mecklenburg sidestepped questions on these matters, but sources suggest that Mecklenburg had advocated a course of engagement different from the one the company actually followed and that she met internal opposition from hardliners. As a result, chances to engage the parties went begging, apparently overcome by distrust and organizational tensions about how to respond.

Faced with growing criticism and the threat of a public confrontation, Starbucks decided to back off. When the trademark for Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo was approved on June 25, 2006, the company walked away from the application. “We dropped it,” Dub Hay told me. “All we had wanted was to protect this coffee, the shirkina sun-dried process that we had worked on.” He was aggrieved and angry. “Hurting farmers was the farthest thing from what we were trying to do. Our purchases in Ethiopia over the last four years are up 400 percent, our prices are up 40 percent. We’re buying more Ethiopian coffee than we’ve ever bought before and paying premiums no one else has paid. So here we are, thinking we’re doing absolutely the right thing helping the farmers and the co-ops, and someone’s thinking that we’re hurting them. It wasn’t worth it. We gave it up.”

But despite Starbucks’ withdrawal, criticism continued. To make matters worse, Ethiopia’s advocates again accused the company of pressuring the National Coffee Association to oppose the trademark filings in its stead. Starbucks and the NCA both vigorously denied this assertion, but none of the advocating groups believed them. “From my own experience of Starbucks in 2005 and nearly all of 2006,” wrote Ambassador Ayele, “ . . . this looks to me like a clear attempt of the company to hide behind an industry association, while Starbucks continued in its determination to prevent Ethiopia from carrying out its trademark program.”

When I saw Dub Hay in mid-October 2006, he was still convinced that trademarking was a poor strategy. “Oxfam wants us to sign, and they won’t listen to why we don’t think it’s a good idea,” he lamented. At the end of that month, the story broke in the foreign press, with Oxfam in particularly strident form. “Starbucks’ behavior is indefensible,” Petchers inveighed to a reporter. “Starbucks works to protect and promote its own name and brand vigorously throughout the world, so how can it justify denying Ethiopia the right to do the same?” Another Oxfam spokesperson told the BBC that the company’s behavior “stinks of corporate bullying.”

To stave off the escalating controversy, Starbucks again offered to help Ethiopia develop and implement a geographic coffee certification, but the offer did nothing to diffuse the conflict. Oxfam New Zealand staffer Linda Broom told a reporter, “We’ve been lobbying from behind the scenes, but Starbucks has turned a blind eye, so now we’re hoping for a public backlash.”

By November, the Ethiopian government, Oxfam, and Light Years effectively mounted a coordinated effort to compel Starbucks to sign the licensing agreement. Over a period of a few months, more than 90,000 activists and consumers contacted the company to demand a change in its position. On December 16, 2006, Oxfam coordinated a day of action in the United States and abroad. Activists leafleted stores, picketed with posters picturing Ethiopian farmers, and enlisted the support of local Ethiopian communities. On a YouTube video, newly educated customers urged Starbucks to pay Ethiopian farmers more for their coffee and recognize the trademarks.

Dub Hay responded for the company with a YouTube offering of his own, sincere and low-key but wrongly impugning the legality of the trademark strategy. And according to reports, former Starbucks CEO Jim Donald, meeting with Ethiopia’s prime minister, Meles Zenawi, didn’t seem to know the difference between a trademark and a certification. “I can’t talk about the details because I don’t understand them,” he told a London Times reporter. “I’m not a trademark lawyer.”

Honest Mistake?

Its more aggressive opponents remain convinced that Starbucks, like all corporations, is incapable of making an honest mistake. All errors are attributed to bad faith; the company’s motives are berated, its missteps celebrated, and all its actions viewed through a prism of cynicism. The supercynical argue that the accuracy or inaccuracy of the particulars doesn’t really matter because the company is surely bad enough to deserve the negative blast. Hence, Reverend Billy of the Church of No Shopping had no problem with saying, “You’re stealing trademarks from Ethiopian coffee farmers. Starbucks is the devil.”

But some progressives take a more nuanced approach. The National Labor Committee, run by Barbara Briggs and Charlie Kernaghan, was established to help protect worker and human rights in the global economy. Since 1991, the committee has focused U.S. consumers’ attention on offshore clothing sweatshops, most notably exposing the Honduran sweatshops that sewed the Kathie Lee Gifford line for Wal-Mart. Briggs and Kernaghan are masters at holding corporations accountable, often through the canny use of publicity to magnify their organizing. Over the years, they’ve developed a sophisticated view of corporations and tactics.

Briggs acknowledges that, in choosing a public target, “the calculus includes how well-known the brand is, and how much the brand will want to protect its image. It’s not so much how good or bad the company is on a theoretical level, but what we actually see on the ground.” She suggests that the difference in how to proceed depends a lot on what happens once a human or workers’ rights issue has been flagged. “We’ve found that even the best companies have some pretty lousy places,” she told me. “The difference is, the good companies called us and told us what they were doing to correct the problem. We didn’t hear that from Wal-Mart.”

A key criterion for a confrontation and the way in which it is waged is whether it benefits the people in whose name the effort has been undertaken. Not all struggles for greater justice can be won, certainly not in the short term, but it helps to have a meaningful and achievable outcome in mind. For some radical campaigners, like the IWW, the publicity sometimes seems more important than the outcome. Ethiopia, on the other hand, needed real solutions and an agreement. “Starbucks is a valuable partner,” Getachew Megistie of Ethiopia’s Intellectual Property Office told me. “We just want to make the relationship more meaningful. Both they and we want to stop the loss of farmers and small traders. And we want to resolve our differences amicably.”

It looks like Getachew will get his wish. At the fourth African Fine Coffee Conference in Addis Ababa in February 2007, Dub Hay announced that Starbucks would not oppose Ethiopia’s trademarking initiative: “It is Ethiopia’s absolute right to take the course they think is best for Ethiopia and we will not oppose that.” He sweetened the Starbucks response with commitments to double the amount of coffee the company buys from Africa, jumping from 6 to 12 percent of its total by 2009. He also promised a 1-million-dollar revolving microloan fund for Ethiopia and 500,000 dollars to CARE International for a literacy program in the country. And the company committed to opening a farmer support center in East Africa.

“We made a mistake,” Jim Donald told me, echoing, or maybe leading, others in the company to the well. “We treated it as though it was a legal issue. But it wasn’t. It was a relationship issue.” Bingo. Starbucks took a bit too long to reach this conclusion, but it finally did. Although company experts still seemed to think the licensing idea was misguided, they had decided to suspend judgment and help Ethiopia’s experiment move forward.

When I did my last interviews at Starbucks on April 3, 2007, Howard Schultz and Jim Donald were meeting with representatives of the Ethiopian government. A month later Starbucks agreed to negotiate a licensing agreement, and the deal was inked in late June. As has so often been the case, the conflict drew massive attention. By comparison, the resolution received little notice.

Given the trademarking scheme’s experimental nature, there is no way to know if the strategy will be successful. The greatest boon to farmers might be Starbucks’ commitment to buy more coffee, make more loans, and offer greater technical expertise. But at least the campaign had moved Africa’s plight to the head of queue.

For a company that likes to portray itself as artfully balancing the demands of profit and principle, the Ethiopian crisis was a hard test. Starbucks didn’t do a very good job of handling it, but the company survived and learned something more about its role in the world, although what and how much would have to await the next crisis. “When you sign a copy of the book for me, I’ll tell you whether I think the resistance was worth all the aggravation,” one Starbucks player ruefully told me. I thought I knew the answer.

But Getachew was thrilled with the outcome, and hopeful. “Once we were actually able to talk with them, we were able to start resolving the problems,” he told me. “It’s like me sitting here with you. We haven’t met before, but we get to know each other. And next time we know each other a little better, and we grow to understand each other.”

Get more news like this, directly in your inbox.

• Corpus ID: 168587055

Starbucks vs. Ethiopia : Corporate Strategy and Ethical Sourcing in the Coffee Industry

• Donald Depass , B. Armitage , +3 authors J. L. Reid
• Published 2011
• Business, Environmental Science

One Citation

Multinational corporations’ role in developing vietnam's public relations industry through corporate social responsibility, 9 references, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Passport: What’s in a name? Ethiopia’s battle against Starbucks

Create an FP account to save articles to read later.

ALREADY AN FP SUBSCRIBER? LOGIN

Downloadable PDFs are a benefit of an FP subscription.

Subscribe Now

World Brief

• Editors’ Picks
• Africa Brief

China Brief

• Latin America Brief

South Asia Brief

Situation report.

• Flash Points
• War in Ukraine
• Israel and Hamas
• U.S.-China competition
• U.S. election 2024
• Biden's foreign policy
• Trade and economics
• Artificial intelligence
• Asia & the Pacific
• Middle East & Africa

How to Defend Europe

How platon photographs power, ones and tooze, foreign policy live.

Summer 2024 Issue

Print Archive

FP Analytics

• In-depth Special Reports
• Issue Briefs
• Power Maps and Interactive Microsites
• FP Simulations & PeaceGames
• Graphics Database

FP at NATO’s 75th Summit

Nato in a new era, fp security forum, fp @ unga79.

By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.

Your guide to the most important world stories of the day

Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent

The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week

Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy

Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day

One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture

Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors

A curated selection of our very best long reads

This article was published more than 17 years ago

What’s in a name? Ethiopia’s battle against Starbucks

Ethiopia, fed up with getting short-changed when selling its popular coffee products to the west, has been in legal conflict with starbucks since 2005. ethiopia complains that while a pound of coffee sold in the united states nets ethiopian farmers about $1, the same pound of coffee sells for $26 at starbucks under the name “shirkina sun-dried sidamo.” ethiopia argues that the ....

Ethiopia, fed up with getting short-changed when selling its popular coffee products to the West, has been in legal conflict with Starbucks since 2005. Ethiopia complains that while a pound of coffee sold in the United States nets Ethiopian farmers about $1, the same pound of coffee sells for $26 at Starbucks under the name "Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo." Ethiopia argues that the high price for its coffee is not just the result of roasting, packaging or marketing in the United States, but because there is something consumers intrinsically value in Ethiopian coffee. Ethiopia is frustrated that it hasn't been able to capitalize on the "intellectual property" of its coffee-producing regions, and wants that to change.

Ethiopia, fed up with getting short-changed when selling its popular coffee products to the West, has been in legal conflict with Starbucks since 2005. Ethiopia complains that while a pound of coffee sold in the United States nets Ethiopian farmers about $1, the same pound of coffee sells for $26 at Starbucks under the name “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo.” Ethiopia argues that the high price for its coffee is not just the result of roasting, packaging or marketing in the United States, but because there is something consumers intrinsically value in Ethiopian coffee. Ethiopia is frustrated that it hasn’t been able to capitalize on the “intellectual property” of its coffee-producing regions, and wants that to change.

In March 2005, Ethiopia filed a case with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to  trademark the names of three of its renowned coffee-producing regions (Yirgacheffe, Harrar and Sidamo), hoping that eventually the government will be able to force buyers into licensing agreements and thereby gain a bigger share of the sales. Starbucks, which had already applied to trademark Shirkina Sun-dried Sidamo, has been able to stall Ethiopia’s progress by not responding to Ethiopia’s request to drop its petition. Starbucks argues that Ethiopia should opt for “geographic certification” (used for Idaho potatoes and Florida oranges) rather than an outright geographic trademark. Ethiopia counters that it just doesn’t have the resources to bear the burden of certification, and that it still wouldn’t necessarily help Ethiopia earn more from coffee sold in those regions. Starbucks could still sell its Sidamo coffee for the same price—as long as it actually comes from Sidamo.

Starbucks sources only 2 percent of its beans from Ethiopia at the moment, accounting for around 2 percent of the Ethiopia’s crop. Nonetheless,  if Ethiopia wins its petition, it is likely to earn an extra $88 million in revenues. So for Ethiopia, there’s a lot in a name.

Sign up for Editors' Picks

A curated selection of fp’s must-read stories..

You’re on the list! More ways to stay updated on global news:

France’s Far Right Celebrates Major Wins in Snap Parliamentary Elections

Ehud olmert on israel’s two-front war and the fall of netanyahu, will europe’s front-line states have enough soldiers to fight, hong kong’s democratic diaspora is embracing british elections, why can’t the u.s. navy and its allies stop the houthis, editors’ picks.

• 1 Trump’s Return Would Transform Europe
• 2 Europe Alone
• 3 Why Can’t the U.S. Navy and Its Allies Stop the Houthis?
• 4 The West Misunderstands Its Own Far Right

France's Far-Right National Rally on Track to Win Majority in Snap Parliamentary Elections

Ehud olmert: israel's fight against hezbollah, a postwar gaza, and the fall of netanyahu, will europe's front-line states have enough soldiers to fight russia, hong kongers welcome chance to vote in british elections, western navies struggle to end houthi threat to red sea shipping, more from foreign policy, nato’s new leader was planning this the whole time.

Mark Rutte, a workaholic obsessed with routine, is about to take over the West’s military alliance.

What the United States Can Learn From China

Amid China’s rise, Americans should ask what Beijing is doing right—and what they’re doing wrong.

What a War Between Israel and Hezbollah Might Look Like

The Lebanese armed group is trained and equipped much better than Hamas.

The Hidden Critique of U.S. Foreign Policy in ‘Red Dawn’

Forty years ago, Hollywood released a hit movie with a surprisingly subversive message.

Europe Alone

Trump’s return would transform europe, nato is turning 75, but how much is there to celebrate, the west misunderstands its own far right, biden’s foreign-policy problem is incompetence.

Sign up for World Brief

FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day, written by Alexandra Sharp . Delivered weekdays.

Symbol Matches

Symbol starts with, company matches.

• International
• Switzerland

The price differential, says Getachew Mengistie, head of Ethiopia's Intellectual Property Office, is evidence that his country has been unable to capitalize on what he calls its intellectual property. The Fero coffee is an extreme example, but it's not the only one. Ethiopia's specialty beans routinely retail abroad for three times the price of ordinary coffee.

Getachew, who like most Ethiopians goes by his given name, argues that if the higher rates were simply the product of investments in roasting, packaging or marketing, distributors could do the same with any coffee. Since they don't, he says, some of the extra value must originate where the beans are grown. "There is clearly an intangible value in the specialty coffee of Ethiopia," he says. "But it's not being captured here."

That observation put the country that is the birthplace of the coffee bean on a collision course with the company that gave the world the $4 latte. The conflict began in March 2005, when Ethiopia filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to trademark the names of three coffee-producing regions: Yirgacheffe, Harrar and Sidamo, where Fero is located.

It was an attempt to use tools usually reserved for corporations in developed economies to wrest profit from their distributors. By seizing control of these brands, the Ethiopian government planned to force those who sell its coffee into licensing agreements, eventually obtaining a larger share of the sales.

But in the case of Sidamo, Starbucks ( Charts ) had got there first, with an application the year before to trademark Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo. Until that application was resolved, Ethiopia's claim could not go forward. The country asked Starbucks to drop its claim but received no answer for more than a year, says Kassahun Ayele, Ethiopia's ambassador to the U.S. at the time: "They said, 'You have to talk to our lawyers.'"

The coffee company's objection was to Ethiopia's choice of intellectual-property protection. Trademarking is an unusual, though not unprecedented, choice for a geographic region. It gives the holder the exclusive right to use the name in branding, but it doesn't place any requirements on the product. Instead, Starbucks argues, Ethiopia would be better served by another form of protection, called geographic certification, used for such products as Idaho potatoes, Roquefort cheese and Florida oranges. It guarantees that the product comes from the stated region but allows others to use the name in their branding. Jamaican Blue Mountain and Kona coffees have geographic certifications. "I can't name one case where there are trademarks for coffee," says Dub Hay, senior vice president for coffee and global procurement at Starbucks.

Ethiopia doesn't deny that its choice is unorthodox, countering that its industry, in which 95 percent of the coffee is produced by two million subsistence-level farmers, is too unwieldy and impoverished to take on the administrative burden required to guarantee geographic origin. "If you set up certification, you have to bear the cost," says Ron Layton, head of Light Years IP, a nonprofit intellectual-property consultancy that has been advising Ethiopia.

More to the point, certification wouldn't require distributors to seek permission to use the names in their branding. Starbucks, for instance, could still sell Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo, as long as its beans came from the region. "It doesn't give you that control over the market," says Getachew.

To blunt some of the opposition, Ethiopia has said it will not ask for royalties for its trademarked beans. The initial licensing requirements would be simply to label the beans prominently on the package and help in the promotion of Ethiopian coffee. "When demand for Ethiopian coffee grows, we will be able to ask for higher prices," says Getachew. Only if that strategy fails, he says, would other options, such as minimum prices, be pursued.

For Starbucks, the scenario is a potential public relations disaster, pitting the coffee company, which had record revenue of $7.8 billion last year, up 22 percent over 2005, against one of the world's poorest countries. The Seattle company has no shops in Ethiopia or indeed in sub-Saharan Africa, but Starbucks does source 2 percent of its beans from Ethiopia, accounting for 2 percent of the country's crop. It has also spent $2.4 million in investments and loans in Ethiopia since 2002. "We need these coffee farmers to be in business," says Hay.

Ethiopia vs. Starbucks: The Internatinal Trademark Battle that Reshaped the World Coffee Market

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

In legendary birthplace of coffee, an un-Starbucks

By Marc Lacey

• July 22, 2005

ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia — It looks like a Starbucks. It smells and tastes like one too. Settle into one of the comfortable Starbucks-like armchairs and it certainly feels like the real thing.

But the hottest café in the Ethiopian capital is not a Starbucks at all but a knockoff, the creation of a Starbucks devotee who tried to bring the real thing to Ethiopia, which is by many accounts the birthplace of coffee. But she had to settle for a look-alike after the Seattle coffee giant rebuffed her partnership request.

Kaldi's has a Starbucks-like logo and Starbucks-like décor, and its workers wear Starbucks-like green aprons. At the bar, a large coffee is called a "tall" one as at Starbucks, although Kaldi's sticks exclusively to Ethiopia's coffee varieties, while the real Starbucks includes Ethiopia's premium beans among many other offerings.

"I've always loved Starbucks - the ambience of it," said Tseday Asrat, the proprietor of Kaldi's, confessing the obvious inspiration behind her year-old business. "So we created our own version of it here."

Kaldi's is by no means the only pretender around Addis Ababa. The latest hotel to go up near the airport is a "Marriot," another knockoff: It uses only one "t" but it has the exact same typeface in its sign as the J.W. Marriott hotel chain. There is a 7-11 convenience store as well, which has no connection with the 7-Eleven stores on so many corners in America. The copycats are evidence of the financial success that many Ethiopians are attaining abroad and of the desire of many of them to invest some of their wealth back home.

Officials at the Starbucks Coffee Company were not thrilled when they learned about Kaldi's. "Even where it may seem playful, this type of misappropriation of a company's name (and reputation) is both derivative and dilutive of their trademark rights," a company spokeswoman, Lara Wyss, said in an e-mail, adding that the company preferred to resolve such conflicts amicably.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Corporate Strategy and Ethical Sourcing in

Related documents.

Add this document to collection(s)

You can add this document to your study collection(s)

Add this document to saved

You can add this document to your saved list

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib

(For complaints, use another form )

Input it if you want to receive answer

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Featured Student Assignments (LawSikho)

Starbucks v Sardarbuksh : all you need to know about the trademark dispute

This article has been written by Sakshi Rathi, pursuing a Diploma in Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Laws from LawSikho .

Table of Contents

Introduction

Intellectual property rights are the legal rights used to protect individuals from infringement of any of their intellectual work. Intellectual work includes any work that is created by the human mind and such work involves copyrights, patents, designs as well as trademarks. This article will give you an in-depth understanding of trademarks, and trademark disputes with the help of the famous case law – ‘’Starbucks vs Sardarbuksh’’

What is a trademark?

A trademark includes a symbol, word, phrase, logo, design or a combination of any of such things. Trademarks are used for any goods and services to be identified by the customers. Examples of a trademark can include the logo of the brand Apple, the logo of the brand Nike, the logo of McDonald’s as well as the phrase ‘’I’m lovin it’’ and other such related phrases and items. 

What is a Trademark dispute?

From the above paragraph, we got an idea of what a trademark is. And, we all know what a dispute means. A dispute means a disagreement or an argument. From this, we can clearly understand, a trademark dispute means an argument or a disagreement between two people who are trying to use the same or similar trademark. Such use of the same or similar trademark is known as an infringement of the trademark. In India, infringement of a trademark is an offence. Thus, the offender shall have to bear the consequences.

Can two trademarks be deceptively similar?

Section 11 of the Trademarks Act 1999 deals with the grounds on which the registration of trademarks can be refused or denied i.e., it deals with reasons for which the trademark may not be registered. One of the reasons mentioned in the section for which the trademark can be refused or denied registration includes the trademark being refused for registration because it is “Deceptively Similar’’ i.e., it is identical or similar to another mark, and for this reason, it creates confusion in the buyer’s mind. So, two trademarks cannot be deceptively similar. Below is a landmark judgement to understand the concept of “Deceptive similarity’’ in detail.

Parle Products (P) Ltd. V. J.P. & Co. Mysore  

Facts of the case.

The plaintiffs-appellants before the court are manufacturers of biscuits and confectionery and they also own certain registered trademarks. One of the trademarks that they own includes the word “Gluco” which is used on their half-pound biscuit packets. Another registered trademark that they own is a wrapper with its colour scheme, general set up and entire collocation of words registered under the Trade Marks Act 1940. This wrapper is used concerning the sale of their biscuits known as “Parle’s Gluco Biscuits” which is printed on the wrapper. The wrapper is of buff colour and depicts a farmyard with a girl in the centre carrying a pail of water, with cows and hens around her along with a   background of a farmyard house and trees. The plaintiffs claim that they have been selling their biscuits on a large scale for many years under the said trademark which has gained a huge reputation and goodwill to them in the public. They claimed to have discovered in March 1961 that the defendants were manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, the biscuits in a wrapper which according to them was deceptively similar to their registered trademark. The plaintiffs contended that this act of the defendant constituted an infringement of their trademark rights. Despite the lawyer’s notice, the defendants continued the manufacturing, selling and using of the wrappers which had a deceptively similar trademark on them. Such a deceptively similar trademark was the registered trademark of that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit claiming injunction.

Trial court

The trial court, after examining the features of both the wrappers, found that there were greater dissimilarities between the wrappers than there were similarities. Consequently, the trial court held that the plaintiffs had failed in establishing their case.

High court’s verdict

The high court said the Court had to keep in mind that it was dealing with packets of biscuits that were generally used by people of the upper classes. There were many discriminating features between the two wrappers which were very apparent. The similarity in both the wrappers was narrowed to the extent that both were partly yellow and partly white and both had the design of a girl and some birds. The lady in the wrapper used by the Appellant had a pot on her hand while the lady in the wrapper used by the Respondent had a hay-bundle on her head. Respondent’s wrapper had pictures of cows and Appellant’s wrapper showed two calves. Therefore, the court said, they are not so similar that they can deceive an ordinary purchaser of biscuits.

Supreme Court’s verdict

In an act of infringement, where the similarity between the plaintiff’s and defendant’s mark is so similar to an extent where it is either visually, phonetically or otherwise matching or close and if the court reaches a conclusion that there is some kind of imitation or copying, then there is no need of any further evidence to prove that the plaintiff’s rights are violated. The court opined, to conclude whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the essential features of the two are to be taken into consideration. They need not be put side by side to ascertain if there are any differences in the design. It shall be enough if the impugned mark bears overall similarity to the registered mark. The court stated, the packets of both the biscuits are of the same size, the colour scheme of both the wrappers is almost the same and the design of both, though not identical, shows a very close resemblance that it can easily be mistaken for the other. The essential features of both the wrappers are also similar. Therefore, there is no doubt that the defendants’ wrapper is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s wrapper. Accordingly, the verdict was given in favour of the plaintiff. This case made it very clear that two trademarks can’t be deceptively similar. 

According to section 2(1)(h) read with section 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999, deceptively similar means the mark resembling the other mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Further, the fact that both the parties are dealing in the same kind of trade and offering the same services to its customers also plays an important role.  In deciding the question of deception and confusion the fact that the purchaser/buyer/customer might or might not be literate should be kept in mind. 

The above case stands as a landmark one when it comes to the concept of deceptive similarity. It has provided a lot of clarity concerning cases related to the infringement of trademark through deceptive similarity and acted as a reference for future cases. After this case, there have been many cases with regards to deceptive similarity and one such recent case is the Starbucks vs Sardarbuksh case. Here is a detailed discussion of that case:

Starbucks v. Sardarbuksh

This case involves Starbucks corporation and sardarbuksh coffee and co. Starbucks is the plaintiff and sardarbuksh is the defendant in the case. Starbucks is a famous coffee joint known for its coffee and has branches in multiple countries. Sardarbuksh is also a coffee place started in Delhi in 2015 having many outlets. 

Starbucks has its logo and name registered and is globally recognised. It is a well-known trademark with its logo depicting a crowned maiden with long hair in green colour. Sardarbuksh’s logo has a turbaned man with wavy lines extending from the sides. This makes the Sardarbuksh coffee and co. ‘s logo looks very similar to that of Starbucks. There are many other similarities such as the colour of the crowned maiden from the Starbucks logo and the colour of the turbaned man from the sardarbuksh logo are the same. Both the logos are round in shape. So, when we compare, the logos look very similar, the shape of the logo is the same and the colour of the logo is also the same. Moreover, the names of both coffee places also sound very similar. One more thing that needs to be noted is that the goods and services provided by both defendants and plaintiffs are identical. 

After receiving a letter of demand from Starbucks Corporation in 2017, the defendants made necessary changes to their logo and changed their colour scheme to black and yellow and started trading under the new logo.

Later on, Starbucks filed a case against Sardarbuksh before the Delhi high court on 1st August 2018 for using the word mark’’Sardarbuksh’’ which was sounding very much like ‘’Starbucks’’. 

The Delhi high court advised the defendants to go for new branding for its upcoming outlets while the five outlets that have been already functioning will continue the same way until the court’s final verdict. So, the defendants changed their name from “Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co.” to “Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co for their upcoming outlets. 

On September 27, 2018, there was an exchange of terms and conditions between the parties, and such terms and conditions were put on record with the High Court of Delhi. Further, it was agreed that the defendant would change the name of all its outlets to “Sardarji-Bakhsh Coffee & Co.” Additionally, it was clarified and agreed upon that, if a third party uses the term “Bakhsh,” the defendant will have a right to file a suit against such a violator. The suit was finalized on the said terms.

This judgement in a way encouraged the registration of trademarks. Because, if a person has his trademark registered, there cannot be any means through which such trademark can be exploited by making a deceptively similar trademark and using it for their economic gains or to hamper the goodwill of such registered trademark or the trademark owner. Additionally, if any individual tries to do so, he will have to face the legal consequences. 

As a trademark has a good reputation and goodwill, it is really important to protect it from any kind of exploitation, misuse and violation. With the help of the above cases, we can clearly understand that the court can go beyond what is written in the law to preserve justice, protect the rights of the traders and the interests of the consumers. Such cases make it easy for people to have faith in the judiciary.

Starbucks vs SardarBaksh: Local coffee chain agrees to change logo, name to Sardarji-Bakhsh – BusinessToday

True Brew: Starbucks Corporation v. Sardarbuksh Coffee & Co. – Intellectual Property – India (mondaq.com)

Deceptively Similar Trademarks: Examples & Case Study | Intepat IP

Students of  Lawsikho courses  regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:  https://t.me/joinchat/L9vr7LmS9pJjYTQ9

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

City corporation of calicut vs. thachambalath sadalinan & ors. (1985) , south india corp. (p) ltd. vs. board of revenue (1964), r. lakshmi narayan vs. santhi (2001), leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp (LIVE only) on

How you can use labour law skills to go from HR manager to business leader

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

Starbucks vs Ethiopia

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

The distinctive growth tale of starbucks.

* Nancy F.Kohen, Marya Besharov, Katherine Miller. (2008). Starbucks coffee company in 21st century. Available: Harvard digital library. Last accessed 30 September 2011.…

Term Assignment GEOG 2200

It is apparent that the history of coffee is intertwined with the aspects of the globalization process, role of Multi-National Corporations and the global economic sector.…

ECON 101 - Essay 1

Coffee has historically been one of the most favorite beverages available. Almost every country in the world consumes coffee in some shape, way or form. Interest in this drink has increased even more over the last century. According to Talbot (2004), from 1970 to 2000 coffee was “the second most valuable commodity exported by developing countries" (p. 50). Since then, there have been some changes in the supply and demand of this product. This essay will analyze the steady growth in demand for specialty coffee, the change in supply available, and present a case as to why the Starbucks Corporation is successful.…

Starbucks vs Tim Hortons

Starbucks and Tim Horton’s are two companies that specialize in the food and coffee service industries. Information about each company, a comparison of how each markets their brand and their differing distribution methods will be provided.…

Starbucks vs Dunkin Donuts

This study gives a brief review of the U.S. and international coffee shop industry. The coffee industry includes 20,000 stores with combined revenue of $11 billion. Approximately 20 million people work in the coffee industry worldwide. The coffee industry is very concentrated at the top and fragmented at the bottom with the top 50 companies taking up to 70% of the sales. Starbucks lead the way with over 16,680 stores worldwide; and there are some other competitors following them very close.…

How Starbucks Is Changing the World

In this paper we are going to discuss the way that Starbucks is changing the world. From its early inception to what it is dong today, Starbucks is a world-changer. We will be discussing the beginning of Starbucks, its management, what Starbucks is doing for the environment, and various other aspects of the corporation.…

Starbucks vs Mcdonalds, the Breakfast Wars

Starbucks, the undisputed king of coffee has recently been challenged by another heavyweight competitor in the War over the Morning cup of Joe. McDonalds, a powerhouse in the fast-food world has been looking to expand into the specialty coffee business and replicate its burger success into the Java Realm. Both companies are great examples of iconic brands, and have had tremendous success and market resilience. It’s no surprise, that these two companies have come to be such bitter competitors because the breakfast and specialty coffee markets are two of the fastest growing fast food segments. People are living much faster paced lives in general and are seeking ways to combine breakfast and coffee on the go. The question remains, who will ultimately win out in the specialty coffee war? I will adopt Sun Tzu principles from the Art of War, to show how Starbucks has built a superior offense and is similarly well fortified in securing its number one marketshare position.…

Nestle Fairtrade Analysis

The primary issue is related to the coffee farmers in Africa and South America. They are not paid a sufficient price for their crop, and health and environmental standards are unregulated. Low coffee prices due to a higher supply than demand around 2000 leaving several coffee farmers with earnings below sustenance level. This caused large coffee producers to enforce a more sustainable supply chain with their coffee farmers. Nestlé is facing a decision whether to market their new instant coffee under the fair-trade brand or to keep complying with their own high CSR standards.…

Swot: Coffee and Starbucks Global Quest

Watch the video, How to Perform a SWOT Analysis, and then conduct a SWOT analysis using the Starbucks’ Global Quest 2006: Is the Best Yet to Come? Case provided in the Course Materials section.…

Regulatory Agencies

Starbucks operates in over 50 countries worldwide. With this Starbucks must look at all types of regulatory bodies for financial reasons, making sure their guidelines are met both at home and abroad. Starbucks has gone out of its way to rely on and help out their farmers abroad. From Tokyo to Seattle the Starbucks brand is one that is symbolic of a successful business. The success of Starbucks has been built on international partnerships as the business aspect of bringing in coffee beans from businesses that share the same values of Starbucks. There has to be a marriage of the companies in order to do business. Financially this affects Starbucks in that if a company they do business with does something wrong or acts unethically it falls back on the Starbucks brand.…

Economics of Starbucks

The purpose of this paper is to connect and apply economic theories and concepts to real–life situations in the competitive market. Specifically, the paper will examine a CBC News article, ‘Starbucks Gives Its Prices a Jolt’ from 2006, which states Starbucks coffees and whole beans prices are increasing by 1.9% and 3.9%, respectively.…

The Coffee Crisis

Osorio, N. (2002). ICO.org Documents/Global Crisis. International Coffee Organization. Retrieved May 4, 2012, from dev.ico.org/documents/globalcrisise.pdf…

international human resource management

3. ContentsI. Overview Starbucks -MilestonesII. PESTLE-Analysis • General Information • P – Political Issues • E – Economical Issues • S – Social Issues • T – Technological Issues • E – Environmental Issues • L – Legal IssuesIII. Conclusion…

Globalization Nestle

References: Atkinson D, Denny C, (2000). Coffee countries find grounds for protest. The Guardian; 2/06/2000. Found at accessed on (01.12.2010)…

Culture and Starbucks

Starbucks' global corporate goal is to become the leasing coffee seller and brand in each of its expansion targets. They aim to do this through their finest quality coffee and other products, and by means of their…

Related Topics

• Howard Schultz

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• Assignments
• Dissertations
• Research Proposal
• Report Writing
• Literature Review
• CDR Writing
• Resume Writing
• Engineering
• IT & Computer Science
• Value Added Services
• Plagiarism Check
• Proofreading & Editing
• Expert Consultation
• Live Session 1-On-1

Quality Check

• By University
• By Subject Codes
• Free Samples
• Reviews 4.5/5
• Help & Support
• Certified Experts
• Our Policies
• Ask your Question
• Request Callback
• Get $50 Off
• Get 500 Words Free
• Premium Membership

Quick Searches

• Samples - e.g. Management Assignment Samples
• Services - e.g. MATLAB Assignment Help
• Support : FAQs , Policies, Ordering Support

HI5015 Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Case Study Sample

• Subject Code : HI5015
• University : Holmes Institute My Assignment Services is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
• Subject Name : Law

Topics Covered In This Solution File

Legal Aspects of International Trade And Enterprise

Executive summary of starbucks vs. ethiopia case study.

Through this report, the purpose is to discuss in-depth about the “Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Case Study” and the main aim is to discuss the coffee wars trademark issues. As the Starbucks most dependable product is the “Coffee” and each year, the company has its international strategies and the Ethiopian coffee industry. It is also important to note some of the world’s finest coffees, for example, Harrar®, Sidamo®, and Yirgacheffee® that have started to originate within Ethiopia. the coffees that have a unique flavor, along with aroma which can distinguish some of the coffees from the rest of the global countries. It is also how the countries like the rich flavors, aromas are due to the special coffee beans in Ethiopia. Towards, the dispute which arose was the Starbucks application for the name of the Shirking Sun-Dried Sidamo which was the legal trademark name and there was also the successful application, that was going around globally and with the trademark owner, and it is also the ability to reach out the using the masses with the important decision making

Executive Summary.

Introduction.

Facts of the Case.

Identification of the Legal Issues.

Explanation of the ICJ, Court or tribunal’s decision.

Significance of the case in international law..

References.

Introduction to Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Case Study

Through this report, globally, the world produces approximately 7 million tons of coffee.1 and together there are 500 billion cups of coffee annually produced. The potential profits have been derived from the massive coffee trade and it is important to note, how there have been intellectual property strategies that would be based on the multi-national coffee purchasers, and through the coffee-producing countries that can be based on the less obvious. In the famous case of the Starbucks versus Ethiopia, the battle of the war was in between the dispute that advocates how to use trademarks and the intellectual dispute rights over the term “Siam”. The main purpose is to describe how there has been a cascading impact and how to describe the coffee products, that could experience the Government of Ethiopia and the coffee giant Starbucks (Pavlenko et al, 2019). The Ethiopian economy has so far, been heavily dependent on the trade of the primary products and through the trade of wars, the potential problems faced are of the "copyright" and the "trademark" issues (Pylypenko, et al , 2019). As Ethiopia country's limited tradable goods and it alone from the coffee can generate approximately 60 percent of the total export earning, despite the Starbucks application for the trademarks names and the patent rights, still the country under the GI and protecting the laborers and industry filed the case (Yi, 2018).

Facts of the Case

In the case that started with the trademark war in between the application of Ethiopia and with the processing during the time, the company Starbucks would be able to solve and be able to attain the time. It is important, that Ethiopia asked Starbucks who would further be dropping the application and it was later used with the hesitant to approach with for Ethiopia to approach the type of certification. The company Starbucks has been one of the consistent awardees of and it is known to be one of the ethical companies that have proceeded with the various Corporate Social Responsibility programs. In March 2005, Ethiopia has filed the names Yirgacheffe, Harrar, and Sidamo with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. As such names are the regional traits of the country; the three coffees that have been producing with the country are known to be one of the finest coffee. Through the initial work for the trademark, such names have arisen from the Ethiopian governments and it has been known to be one of the commercial advantages. The country is known to be a key deriving by applying for the trademark due to holding a distinct name and it wanted to attain the exclusive ownership and from the Ethiopian coffee names, that would gain from the world market and even maintain a large portion of coffee sales and even cover the lucrative market see it. The country Ethiopia is known to be one of the l licensing agreements with coffee retailers that would be consequently be increasing the income and there would be an obligation from the Ethiopian farmers. As the country enjoys a strong reputation and there would be a country association associated with it, it is important to protect the national heritage of the coffees and even command a very high retail price within the international market. Now, as far, there is only 5 to 10 percent of the belongingness of the retail price that has gone back to Ethiopia; and it is important to be the profit that could be shared and distributed in between the distributors and for the subsequent middlemen, that can be across the marketing sector. It is also important that countries. The country has also started with the cup of cappuccino that has been sold with the US$ 4, and it is important to grow the growers in Ethiopia and it is also developing across to the less then dollar a day (Pauwelyn 2016). It is also important to protect the rights of the farmers that have abandoned coffee production and it is necessary to protect for the returns and work in the engagement of the profitable narcotic plants. The case rests on the side of the strong ethical commitment that has outlined the case, for the corporate code, and observed for the products, across the coffee shops. Such beliefs and values can be stressed to work alongside for the stores. It is due to the trademark dispute that can work following Starbucks and Ethiopia and it has given a rise to the various criticisms that have directed over the coffee chain. Towards the questions, there has been a Starbucks’ decision that has applied to Ethiopia's application, which if allowed would give the livelihood of coffee farmers. Further, there has been a conflict that has risen with the Company's commitment and it is necessary for the social responsibility along with ethical sourcing (Patel, 2017).

The country Ethiopian government is seeking to narrow down the gaps and coexists in between the retail price that could cover the return to the producers, that can protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs) It is also important to narrow down the differentiating the coffee that has been placed within the market place and further to achieve the higher returns (Lester, 2018). During 2004, the government has also initiated with the Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative (the Initiative) and to provide the solution that would have been divided in between the coffee farmers and further on how to receive their beans and as to how the retailers would be charged for the coffee as they have been part of the different countries. It is important to understand if the Ethiopian Fine Coffee can work in accordance to the Stakeholder Committee (the Stakeholder Committee) and there can be cooperatives, private exporters along with the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) that could connect with the government bodies (Lester, 2017).

Identification of the Legal Issues

IP Management

The EIPO has been covered with the vast leadership and there has been a major initiative that could rise and work alongside, with the mechanism that could attain a greater share and also have the higher country’s coffee growers. Through the initiative, there can be higher retail prices that cover the Harrar, Sidamo along the Yirgacheffe – and it is important to attain the coffee brands of Ethiopia (Gibson, 2016). The theory has been the highest payer that can cover the bigger. Access and has included the big companies that can do what seems to be right and how much for the skills or financial means. It is also an important recognition of the brands that would cover the international markets and finally establish the long term demand for them (Garg, 2019).

The company's key strategy has been to cover the Stakeholder Committee that can work with a higher recognition that could cover the Ethiopian coffees. The brand has been placed, over the expanding specialty coffee market; and with time, the country has to cover Ethiopia's ownership and for better misappropriation. The company also aims to share the higher retail prices that could cover the demand of the Ethiopian coffee as to would go to the rural producers. the government's decision, to work and also in line with the best use IPRs can be obtained with the ownership of Ethiopian coffee names, and it would be important to expand over the international recognition and even work for the maximize returns (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019). The company has the issue of the registration that could be faced over Ethiopian coffee and with the geographical indication (GI) that would be the best course of direction. The country has even expanded with Ethiopia and it is important to work across the different set regions and to work in the famous (Frolova, et al, 2018). The company has also shown the rich workings across the circumstances to protect the production and even make GI registrations to be higher suitable than the intellectual property (IP) protection.

IP Dispute Resolution

The company is working with the vast majority of the trademark strategy that covers the Ethiopian coffee that has been faced with 2006. Through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) the company has even approved over the application that could register the Yirgacheffe. The company would be working in line with the National Coffee Association (NCA), which has been identified with the coffee roasters and even with the United States, and it is necessary to protect he EIPO's applications for the trademark first Harrar, and for the Sidamo. The company that would be working the names that can also work with the generic description of coffee, and for the overall not eligible that could work for the registration as per the United States trademark law. The USPTO has even turned down the application for Harrar in 2005 and even for the Sidamo in 2006.

The company has faced the issue of experiencing the wide media, that has even been following the low driving force that could work for the NCA objection, and it can offer publicly to assist for the EIPO that can set over the national system of certification marks and for the farmers that could protect and core the coffee through the “robust” geographical indications (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019). The company is also known to be experiencing the wide workings of the effective approach and there can be registering trademarks that could be described for the geographically and it is important for the contrary that can work with the general trademark law along with the custom. The company EIPO can also work with the disagreed. It is also important to be focused on geographical locations and to provide distinctive coffee types (Balwicki, 2018). Father, it is necessary for the intellectual property (IP) tools that can be chosen that could meet the specific needs and situations.

The IPO has even filed rebutted the USPTO decisions and there has been strong evidence for the terms like Harrar and Sidamo that can acquire the distinctiveness. It is also important to work in line with Starbucks and it is important for the Ethiopian government that could actively be resolving the differences by identifying the flexible ways to look forward. It is also important to focus on the announcement in 2006 and to reach out for the mutually satisfactory agreement that can work with the line of the distribution, marketing, and even for the licensing to be provided to Ethiopia’s specialty coffee designations and promote to provide recognition to the names of Harrar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019).

Financing and Partnerships

The case also provided inept issues of the secured financial support that was faced by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the UK, which has provided an insight over the Kingdom, and there has been a Washington-based non-governmental organization (NGO. The company also has a high cost of legal services and there has been foreign trademark registration that has created the problem with the initial difficulties. Ethiopia has not been a member of the Madrid system that can cover the international registration of marks (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019).

The company has acquired the trademarks, Ethiopia has also sought the -free licensing scheme and the purpose was to recognize and be able to distribute the across trademarks use. It is also the reputation that could work with the reputation and good that can cover the specialty coffees that would be related to the trademarks.” The government coffee can work for the highest market visibility that could demand the highest export premium that could be provided with the highest share (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019)..

Impacts of the Ethiopian Initiative

The Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative set a new dimension in the buyer-seller relationship. The significance of the Initiative is likely to go not only beyond the coffee trade but also beyond the borders of Ethiopia (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019).. Producers of primary goods in many developing countries often receive only marginal returns. The Initiative has created the momentum for change and bears the potential to offer more feasible ways to improve the commercial prospects and financial returns for marginal producers of coffee or other similar commodities. For developing countries, a new frontier is set to leverage benefits from their IP assets (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019).

The company is known to be under the profile dispute with Starbucks that has increased with the popularity and there would be Ethiopian coffee. It is also important that can be based on the media coverage that can be working with the effect of greatly and it is the public knowledge and it is important to work for the Ethiopia’s coffees. “The price is of the Yirgacheffe has increased by the $ 0.60 cents to $ 2 a pound. It is important to resolve the stakeholders interest and work for the approved July 2008 under the four brands that have been identified with the name “Ethiopian Fine Coffee” and there can be “Harar Ethiopian Fine Coffee,” “Yirgacheffe Ethiopian Fine Coffee” and “Sidamo Ethiopian Fine Coffee” (Flaga-Gieruszyńska, 2019). .

Explanation of the ICJ, Court or Tribunal’s Decision

It started with the Starbucks that has expanded since the Seattle first operation in the 1971 and now it has expanded across the 16,000 locations over the 50 countries (Lester, 2018). The company CEO and Chairman Howard Schultz’s has the desire to bring the best quality coffee bean traditions of Starbucks that could merge with the European coffeehouse. The company can bring more than the rich culture “West Coast Yuppie fad.” The company has expanded with the increased market share, sales, and even with the profit margins, loyalty along with market awareness. The company has initiated with the strong ethical values and with the corporate social responsibility, that could help to expand with the commitment to serve the highest-quality and to trade from the today and the future, with the worth more than 3.2 billion dollars. The company has also expanded with the intellectual property strategy. During August 2010, Starbucks has also applied for the 241 trademark applications within the United States Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO). And the company has not been shy off to intellectual property and it is important to the woman that has been named as the “Sam Buck” and they have been calling the coffee shop “Sawbucks (Kang, 2020). “The company is known to protect its name and the brand image and there can be a defense that could belong to the firm's trademarks backfires. The company is known to be under the trademark dispute and has been following the government of Ethiopia for the specialty coffee “Sidamo.” “Sidamo” has been known and referred to as the Sidamo region of Ethiopia. The country is known to be an original and also one of the key birthplace country place from which it has been identified, it is also one of the poorest countries across the globe (Hoagland, 2020). The country has by far known to be one of the organ places of the population, 44 percent has been living under the national poverty line in 2000. The country has been having Ethiopia's primary export and there has been an economic performance that would cover the coffee sector. The company Starbucks is known to be one of the purchasers of the fine brands and of the specialty coffees that have resulted in the selling of the premium that has covered into the retail market. Ethiopian farmers have been known to be one of the organs of the position that can benefit and can even cover with the high prices that have been covered with the superior coffees. Such as, a pound of Starbucks' roasted Shirking Sundried Sidamo that can be sold for the $26 in 2007, and there has been an average e of the farmers that have covered across over with the $1.45.

Significance of The Case in International Law

The country Ethiopia is known to be one of the licensing agreements with coffee retailers that would be consequently be increasing the income and there would be an obligation from the Ethiopian farmers. The country is known to be a key deriving by applying for the trademark due to holding a distinct name and it wanted to attain the exclusive ownership and from the Ethiopian coffee names, that would gain from the world market. It is also important that countries. Now, as far, there is only 5 to 10 percent of the belongingness of the retail price that has gone back to Ethiopia; and it is important to be the profit that could be shared and distributed in between the distributors and for the subsequent middlemen, that can be across the marketing sector. The country has also started with the cup of cappuccino that has been sold with the US$ 4, and it is important to grow the growers in Ethiopia and it is also developing across to the less then dollar a day (Pauwelyn 2016). Even maintain a large portion of coffee sales and even cover the lucrative market see it. As the country enjoys a strong reputation and there would be a country association associated with it. It is also important to protect the rights of the farmers that have abandoned coffee production and it is necessary to protect for the returns and work in the engagement of the profitable narcotic plants. It is important to protect the national heritage of the coffees and even command a very high retail price within the international market.

Conclusion on Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Case Study

It is concluded, that the Ethiopian coffee is also known for the rich culture and society and there are approximately 15 million people directly or indirectly people that are actively working within the Ethiopian coffee industry. It is also important to note some of the world’s finest coffees, for example, Harrar®, Sidamo®, and Yirgacheffee® that have started to originate within Ethiopia. the coffees that have a unique flavor, along with aroma which can distinguish some of the coffees from the rest of the global countries. It is also how the countries like the rich flavors, aromas are due to the special coffee beans in Ethiopia. Towards, the dispute which arose was the Starbucks application for the name of the Shirking Sun-Dried Sidamo which was the legal trademark name and there was also the successful application, that was going around globally and with the trademark owner, and it is also the ability to reach out the using the masses with the important decision making.

References for Starbucks vs. Ethiopia Case Study

Balwicki, Ł., Stokłosa, M., Balwicka-Szczyrba, M., & Tomczak, W. (2016). Tobacco industry interference with tobacco control policies in Poland: legal aspects and industry practices.  Tobacco Control ,  25 (5), 521-526.

Frolova, E. E., Polyakova, T. A., Dudin, M. N., Rusakova, E. P., & Kucherenko, P. A. (2018). Information security of Russia in the digital economy: the economic and legal aspects.  Journal of advanced research in law and economics ,  9 (1 (31)), 89-95.

Flaga-Gieruszyńska, K. (2019). The Role of a Court Expert in Determining the Sale Price of an Enterprise or Individual Assets in the Polish Bankruptcy Law—Selected Legal Aspects. Effective Investments in Capital Markets  (pp. 79-92). Springer, Cham.

Garg, R. (2019). Issues in Insolvency of Enterprise Groups.  Journal of National Law University Delhi ,  6 (1), 50-64.

Gibson, J. (2016).  Community resources: intellectual property, international trade, and protection of traditional knowledge . Routledge.

Hoagland, D. W. (2020). Enterprise Law of the '80s. Routledge.London. The UK.

Kang, T. (2020). One Of The Most Frequently Discussed Issues In International Investment Arbitration: State-Owned Enterprise.  Talent Development & Excellence ,  12 (2).

Lester, S., Mercurio, B., & Davies, A. (2018).  World trade law: text, materials, and commentary . Bloomsbury Publishing.

Meyer, F. V. (2017).  International trade policy  (Vol. 14). Routledge.London. The UK.

Patel, N. (2017). An emerging trend in international trade: a shift to safeguard against ISDS abuses and protect host-state sovereignty.  Minn. J. Int'l L. ,  26 , 273.

Pauwelyn, J. H., Guzman, A., & Hillman, J. A. (2016).  International trade law . Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Pavlenko, O., Triakina, O., Garmash, E., Bogdanova, E., Jeifets, V., Babayev, I., ... & Zafeiropoulos, P. (2019). Facilitation and security of international trade: innovative mechanisms and instruments. Routledge.London. The UK.

Pylypenko, A. A., Savytska, N. L., Vaksman, R. V., Uhodnikova, O. I., & Schevchenko, V. S. (2019). Methodical Maintenance of Management of Logistic Activity of the Trade Enterprise: Economic and Legal Support.  Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics ,  10 (6 (44)), 1723-1731.

Yi, L., & You, Y. (2018, August). A Study on Bilingual Talents Cultivation Model of International Trade Practices from the Perspective of Production-education Integration and School-enterprise Cooperation. In  the 8th International Conference on Education, Management, Information, and Management Society (EMIM 2018) . Atlantis Press.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help

Get Quote in 5 Minutes*

• Algeria (+213)
• Antigua and barbuda (+1268)
• Australia (+61)
• Austria (+43)
• Azerbaijan (+994)
• Bahrain (+973)
• Bangladesh (+880)
• Canada (+1)
• China (+86)
• Congo (+243)
• Cyprus (+357)
• Europe (+3)
• France (+33)
• Germany (+49)
• Ghana (+233)
• Greece (+30)
• Hong kong (+8)
• Hungary (+36)
• India (+91)
• Indonesia (+62)
• Iran (islamic republic of) (+98)
• Ireland (+353)
• Jamaica (+1)
• Japan (+82)
• Jordan (+962)
• Kazakhstan (+7)
• Kenya (+254)
• Kuwait (+965)
• Latvia (+371)
• Lesotho (+266)
• Malaysia (+60)
• Maldives (+960)
• Malta (+356)
• Mauritius (+230)
• Myanmar (+95)
• Namibia (+264)
• Nepal (+977)
• Netherlands (+31)
• New zealand (+64)
• Nigeria (+234)
• Norway (+47)
• Oman (+968)
• Pakistan (+92)
• Papua new guinea (+675)
• Philippines (+63)
• Poland (+48)
• Qatar (+974)
• Saudi arabia (+966)
• Singapore (+65)
• Somalia (+252)
• South africa (+27)
• South korea (+82)
• Spain (+34)
• Sri lanka (+94)
• Sweden (+46)
• Switzerland (+41)
• Taiwan (+886)
• Thailand (+66)
• Turkey (+90)
• Uganda (+256)
• Ukraine (+380)
• United arab emirates (+971)
• United kingdom (+44)
• United states america (+1)
• Uzbekistan (+998)
• Vietnam (+84)
• Yemen (+967)
• Zambia (+260)
• Zimbabwe (+263)

1,212,718 Orders

4.9/5 Rating

5,063 Experts

• 21 Step Quality Check
• 2000+ Ph.D Experts
• Live Expert Sessions
• Dedicated App
• Earn while you Learn with us
• Confidentiality Agreement
• Money Back Guarantee
• Customer Feedback

Just Pay for your Assignment

Turnitin Report

Proofreading and Editing

Consultation with Expert

Live Session 1-on-1

• Let's Start

Other Subjects

Bonanza Offer Get 40% Off * on your assignment today

Get Full Assignment Solution

Thank you for downloading., in case you need help from our phd experts. order now, get ai-free assignment help from 5000+ real experts, searching across 1 million samples....

Doing your Assignment with our samples is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....

Today's Special Get Upto 50% OFF *

Select Coupon