Starbucks and Ethiopia in Heated Trademark Dispute

Ethiopia and coffee have a long history together. Ethiopian natives claim that coffee originated within their country. The name "coffee" itself is thought to have been derived from the Ethiopian city Kaffa. The parent plant to the coffee bean, coffea arabica, is indigenous to Ethiopia and has been cultivated there for over 1,000 years. Coffee is also Ethiopia's biggest export, and the Ethiopian Government is now seeking to capitalize on the growing popularity of specialty coffee that utilizes Ethiopia’s coffee beans.

In hopes of landing licensing agreements with different U.S. coffee chains, the Ethiopian Government recently set out to trademark the names of regions associated with the country's finest coffee beans: Sidamo, Harar, and Yirgacheffe. While some chains complied, Starbucks objected to the marks, and went so far as to release videos claiming that the marks do not comply with trademark law. Now, Ethiopia is fighting back, and some think that Starbucks is in danger of losing its identity.

The Ethiopian Government argues that trademark protection would protect Ethiopia's coffee farmers and add $117 million annually to the Ethiopian economy. Currently, Ethiopian farmers receive $0.75-$1.60/pound for coffee that Starbucks in turn sells for $26.00/pound. In other parts of the world, specialty coffee growers receive up to 45 percent of the retail price, well above the current 5-10 percent that Ethiopian farmers receive.

Brand protection and intellectual property strengthening are the goals of Ethiopia's trademark protection plan. Obtaining a trademark would also give Ethiopia a stake in the retail price of the coffee. Even though Ethiopia coffee represents a tiny fraction of Starbucks' coffee and expenses, the company continues to object to Ethiopia's actions. While Starbucks recently promised to drop its objections to the trademarks, it has not yet said that it would sign a licensing agreement, and so far no further action has been taken.

Cybersquatting on the Rise, Microsoft Looking to Take Action

The number of cybersquatting complaints received by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) increased by twenty-five percent in 2006. Most of the cases involved registration of trademark names as domain names, and most of the companies who reported the cases are information technology, pharmaceutical, and financial companies. A total of 1,823 alleged cybersquatting complaints were filed in 2006, the most complaints handled by WIPO since 2000.

Under Federal Law, cybersquatting is any form of registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with a bad-faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The domain name owner will often try to offer to sell the domain name to the mark owner or will try to make money from accidental internet traffic. Passed in 1999, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) makes alleged cybersquatters liable to civil action. To state a claim under the ACPA, the trademark owner must show: (1) the mark is distinctive or famous; (2) the domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and (3) the mark and the domain name are either identical or confusingly similar.

Microsoft plans to launch a series of lawsuits against alleged cybersquatters and is urging other companies to take action. According to Microsoft, the suits are targeted at companies which have registered trademarks that infringe on Microsoft's intellectual property. In the last seven months, Microsoft has won two cybercrime lawsuits and has also recovered 1,100 domain names since commencing its anti-cybersquatting campaign.

NFL Wants to Trademark "The Big Game"

Already holding trademark rights to "Super Bowl," "Super Sunday," and just about every other phrase heard throughout professional football, the NFL now seeks to gain protection for the phrase "The Big Game."

The NFL was prompted to file for protection after Super Bowl advertisers circumvented the NFL's existing trademark rights by advertising their products for the "Big Game." Accordingly, many advertisers are less than thrilled with the NFL's application. Already, at least fifteen companies have filed for extensions with the trademark office for time to prepare objections, including Wal-Mart, Anheuser-Busch, and Taco Bell.

Also opposed to the NFL's actions are Stanford University and UC Berkeley. Every year since 1902, these schools play a football game that they dub the Big Game. The universities are upset because they feel their football game is ripe with history and tradition, and they fear that they might not be able to refer to it as the Big Game should the NFL be granted trademark rights. The NFL insists though that the filing was done in regard to NFL advertisers, and the college football game will not be affected.

Oppositions aside, the NFL also faces some trademark law hurdles in its attempt. The trademark office might rule that the phrase is generic and therefore not eligible for protection. Similarly, if the trademark office rules that the phrase is descriptive, then the NFL needs to show that the phrase has established distinctive character in the marketplace. Although the NFL does not refer to its Super Bowl as the Big Game, advertisers have done so, and this might be enough for the trademark office to grant the NFL its trademark rights.

Patent Office, Meet Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is the phrase coined by O'Reilly Media in 2004 to describe the wave of new websites that offer user-edited content. Sites such as mySpace, Wikipedia, and Flickr offer users the chance to post, share, and add information to emphasize online collaboration. Starting this Spring, the U.S. Patent Office will join in on this wave.

The Patent Office will soon commence a pilot program that allows users to comment on posted patent applications over the internet. Resembling the system used by Wikipedia, the program is aimed to help overworked examiners cut down on patent examination time by offering them access to technical feedback that they would normally not have access to, as well as to make the patent examination process more democratic. Until this point, the examiners only rely on scientific writings and existing patents.

The program was championed by IBM, the top recipient of U.S. patents for the past 14 years, and NYU Professor Beth Simone Noveck. The participating companies include software giants HP, Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, and IBM, and these companies will agree to have their patents reviewed via the Internet upon submitting the application. The program initially calls for the examination of 250 patents in the field of software design.

Users will be able to share any information relating to the posted applications as well as solicit comments from others. Also, like the ratings systems employed by Amazon and eBay, a "reputation system" will be put in place to rank users based on the relevancy of their comments and their level of expertise. Patent examiners will be able to award users "gold stars" to people who submit useful information. Registered users ultimately vote on the comments, and the top 10 comments will be passed on to the examiner to help in deciding whether to issue a patent.

Cisco, Apple Settle iPhone Dispute

After filing a trademark infringement lawsuit a couple of months ago, Cisco has dismissed any pending legal actions with Apple regarding the 'iPhone' trademark, and the companies have agreed to share the mark.

In the lawsuit filed January 10, Cisco alleged that Apple's use of the iPhone mark constituted a "willful and malicious" violation of the trademark that Cisco has owned since 2000. Apple claimed that because its phone and Cisco’s phone operate over different networks, that they would not compete with each other. Cisco countered that the phones would eventually go head-to-head because of the phones' expansion capabilities.

Because the companies have agreed to share the mark, speculation exists that they will work together to develop products that share both of the companies' technologies. Although the companies have not stated anything about a specific product, a likely product might utilize Cisco's networking expertise and Apple's user experience expertise.