The Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative aimed to trademark these names in key markets like the United States. But Starbucks stood in the way.
. . .
Ethiopia, widely regarded as the birthplace of coffee, has long been known for its rich varieties and deep cultural ties to the bean. Coffee is central to its economy, providing livelihoods for roughly 15 million Ethiopians. But despite this heritage, the farmers who grew the beans often received only a fraction of the profits generated by Western coffee chains. At the same time, those very chains were earning billions from the cachet of Ethiopian coffee names, which signified authenticity and quality to consumers.
The Ethiopian Coffee Trademarking and Licensing Initiative, launched by the Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) and a coalition of cooperatives and exporters, aimed to trademark the names Harrar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe in key markets like the United States, Europe, Japan, and Canada. These names, tied to Ethiopia’s unique coffee regions, had long been used generically by global traders, stripping producers of brand control. The strategy, inspired by New Zealand lawyer Ron Layton, sought to secure trademarks to license the names to roasters, boosting farmer incomes by capturing a sliver of the retail premium. Unlike rigid geographical indications, trademarks offered flexibility, allowing production across Ethiopia while building brand value. By 2009, nearly 100 licensing agreements with global importers had doubled Yirgacheffe farmers’ earnings to $6-$8 per kilogram, with projections of $88 million in annual economic gains.
The initiative collided with Starbucks, the Seattle-based coffee giant with $7.8 billion in revenue in 2006. Starbucks had sourced Ethiopian beans for decades, touting ethical practices and a 400 percent increase in purchases from the country. In 2002, it collaborated with the Fero Farmers Cooperative to develop a sun-dried Sidamo blend, which it sought to trademark in 2004. When Ethiopia filed for Sidamo in 2005, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected it, citing Starbucks’ prior claim. Ethiopia’s diplomatic efforts to engage Starbucks were rebuffed, escalating tensions. The National Coffee Association, influenced by Starbucks, opposed Ethiopia’s Harrar and Sidamo filings, arguing the names were generic. By 2006, public backlash, fueled by Oxfam and the documentary Black Gold, painted Starbucks as a corporate bully exploiting Ethiopia’s heritage. Over 90,000 activists protested, and pickets targeted Starbucks stores.
The 2007 African Fine Coffee Conference in Addis Ababa marked a turning point. Starbucks pledged non-opposition and committed to doubling African coffee purchases, funding microloans, and supporting literacy programs. A June 2007 agreement recognized Ethiopia’s ownership of the names, using “designation” to sidestep legal disputes. The USPTO approved Harrar in 2006 and Sidamo in 2008, boosting export projections and farmer incomes. The saga amplified Ethiopia’s global visibility, with Yirgacheffe prices rising 60 cents per pound.
This conflict illuminates the broader scourge of biopiracy, where wealthy nations and corporations exploit the genetic and cultural resources of poorer ones without fair compensation. Ethiopia’s coffee, born in its forests and refined over centuries, was nearly subsumed by global trade’s indifference to origin. The trademark fight parallels cases like India’s basmati rice or Mexico’s tequila, where indigenous knowledge risks being commodified without benefit to its stewards. Ethiopia’s victory, though partial, showed that intellectual property can be a tool for equity, redirecting value to communities that nurture irreplaceable resources. The farmers’ gains remain modest, but their beans now carry a legacy of resistance, a testament to the power of collective action against the inequities of global commerce.
