The Intersection of Coffee, Trademarks, and Geographical Indications

Introduction

Coffee consumption has surely become a significant aspect of our culture, standardized by millennials and popularized by Gen Z. You may believe that the ingredients in your daily cup of coffee are the only ones you enjoy, but in reality, every cup you drink is also packed with intellectual property, including the GI tag of the country where the coffee beans were grown, the trademark of the company or store you choose to buy it from, the patent for the machine used to brew it, the cup it is served in, and even the cardboard sleeve you use to hold your cup if you purchase one.

The Starbucks sleeve, in addition to having its trademarked emblem emblazoned on each one, was copyrighted until a few years ago. This is the epitome of corporate overprotection of intellectual property, and it may be the fundamental factor in why big businesses, particularly those operating worldwide, control the majority of intellectual property lawsuits involving coffee.

The Economics of Coffee

While coffee is considered a necessity in some parts of the world as an energy booster and mood enhancer, for the nations that produce it, it is a must for survival. In contrast to the places that produce coffee natively, such as Asia, Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, etc., the demand for coffee has been centered in developed northern hemisphere nations with high income per capita.

Regrettably, as a result of the worldwide coffee crisis, coffee producers are now facing enormous difficulties, such as poverty and climate change. The Ethiopian Government made the prescient decision to start the Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative in 2004 to address the financial disparity that Ethiopian farmers were experiencing. This initiative is run by the Ethiopian Fine Coffee Stakeholder Committee, which is primarily made up of cooperatives, exporters, and the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO).

The farmers received only 5–10% of the earnings, with the majority going to middlemen and distributors. The trademarking of the three Ethiopian coffees—Sidamo, Harrar, and Yirgecheffe—was decided upon by the committee. a step up from the traditional course of action, which would have been to get a Geographical Indication (GI). This was done in order to gain more recognition and perhaps increase the farmers' revenue.

If the coffees were to be trademarked, it would mean that independent coffee shops and larger chains would have to pay a fee to use the coffee's name. Ethiopia took action to register the three varieties of Ethiopian coffee as trademarks in 2007.

Geographic Indication vs Trademarks

Geographic Indication (GI), which suggests the reputation and quality of the product, is perhaps the most sought-after Intellectual Property for countries that produce products used as denominations of origin. The Ethiopian government's unprecedented decision to trademark the names of the coffees was supported by three arguments. First, Ethiopia claimed that the coffees did not specifically represent any particular geographic places as a Geographical Indication should.

The coffees would need to be grown in the same area with the same qualities in order for Ethiopia to receive a GI designation, which was not the case. There was no connection between a product's characteristics and the area where it was manufactured. Thirdly, because there were so many smallholder producers, it was extremely challenging to register GI. Second, the Ethiopian government wanted to give exporters more influence and negotiating leverage in the market.

An Unprecedented Precedent

Soon after the National Coffee Association (NCA) opposed its registration, ostensibly because of Starbucks, the EIPO's trademark application for Yirgacheffe was granted by the USPTO. While the opponents claimed that the marks were generic and descriptive, Starbucks' pending registration for "Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo" may have been the real cause. Starbucks received a lot of anger when its trademarks clashed with those of the EIPO, which prompted them to openly assert the superiority of geographic indications (GI) above trademarks in a news statement and work with the EIPO to secure GI tags for its specialty coffees.

Together with their unique insignia, Ethiopian coffees were later registered as trademarks in a number of nations. By granting trademarks to third parties, Starbucks and the EIPO also reached an agreement. It is crucial to remember that the licensing arrangement included the advertising of specialty coffees but was free of royalties.

Conclusion and Possible Implications for India

There are currently five (5) coffee varietals grown primarily in the southern states of India that have received a Geographical Indication designation. Yet, the difficulties faced by the Indian farmers who are farming these types are not new. India could file these five kinds as trademarks in order to break out of this vicious circle. By granting licenses for these Indian coffees, intercropping can be avoided while still promoting Indian variety on the domestic and international markets and providing tiny, dispersed Indian farmers with an adequate income. The exporters, who have borne the burden of the market surplus and fierce competition, can likewise expand their authority abroad by adopting the Ethiopian model.

Unquestionably, the EIPO's endeavor has established a standard for change. Although the outcome of registration was not the best in terms of higher financial rewards for the farmers, it has addressed the apparent power imbalance and monetary discrepancy in global commodities trade and boosted the commercial prospects for other producing nations like India. Producing nations can now trademark, sell, and export their goods under both a Geographical Indication and a Trademark, giving them the ability to license their goods and set a fair price. A trademark registration will also give them more power.