Inttellectual property protection, American style (#349, Topic B)

USA talks big about intellectual-property protection. So, it is really an eye-opener to read a front-page story in today's Wall Street Journal captioned as "Ethiopia Battles Starbucks Over Rights to Coffee Names." It seems that the world's best coffee is produced in the Sidamo region of Ethiopia; its beans give the hint of "black cherry, chocolate and dark rum" wrapped together. The international chain labels it "Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo," (Shirkina, a word supplied by local farmers = partnership), and sells it for $13 per half-pound, back in 2004. How much were these farmers paid? "About 75 cents a pound" -- or 37.5 cents per half-pound. When the director-general of Ethiopia's intellectual-property office raised the issue of "unfair price gap," and wanted to trademark the names, the chain tried to sweet-talk him from doing so. Doing so "would place too much responsibility on the company to defend Ethiopia's trademark;" "it is not something you would do as a business." Intellectual-property protection, it seems, is a one-way street. According to WSJ, Ethiopia pioneered the coffee trade "more than 500 years ago." According to the World Bank, Ethiopia's total export in fiscal year 2006 was about $1 billion, of which coffee accounted for $354 million. In March 2005, the Ethiopia government applied for three trademarks for her three coffee-growing regions -- but "the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office blocked Ethiopia's application for Sidamo because Starbucks had already applied to trademark the name 'Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo." This is nothing new. Western phamaceutical companies have made a practice of trademarking Chinese herbal-medicine ingredients -- millennia old -- and then turning around to accuse Chinese merchants of intellectual-property violation for featuring these same herbal-medicine ingredients in their products. Well, the WSJ story continued by saying that the National Coffee Association, a U.S. trade group, sent a letter to the trademark office "urging it to deny Ethiopia trademarks for Sidamo and Harar [another coffee-growing region]." On what ground? "They are generic names." Specific geographic names as generic names? Talk to any farmer in Champagne -- similar products outside of this region may only use phrases such as "sparkling wine." Oh, excuse me; Champagne is an exception, because it is done by a developed country. According to the National Coffee Association, anothe reason to deny Ethiopia's application is "Ethiopia does not have the capacity to manage the trademarks." Bingo. If this is not enough, the WSJ further stated that "the U.S. trademark office provisionally refused Ethiopia's request for Sidamo and Harar." According to WSJ, "Ethiopia is now appealing the decision." In the meantime, Oxfam, a nonprofit relief and development group, (if my memory serves, it was initiated by quite a few World Bank staffers) began publicizing it by urging customers to complain about the company's stance. So much for intellectual-property protection in a developed country.