[Commons-Law] relay

Via: "Pranesh Prakash"

Via: Monica Narula

Thought this might be of interest.

best
M

Monica Narula
Raqs
Sarai-CSDS
29 Rajpur Road
Delhi 110 054
www.raqsmediacollective.net
www.sarai.net


Begin forwarded message:

> From: Soenke Zehle
> Date: 29 August 2007 2:00:47 PM GMT+05:30
> To: incom
> Subject: Ethiopia's loss in the Starbucks affair
>
> I became interested in the Starbucks issue a while ago when it was
> still
> looking like a possible example of how the IPR-logic could be turned
> around by one of the weaker players; the assessment below is quite
> sobering, Soenke
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> TITLE: Ethiopia's loss in the Starbucks affair
> AUTHOR: Wondwossen Mezlekia
> PUBLICATION: Addis Fortune
> DATE: 19 August 2007
> URL:
> http://www.addisfortune.com/Vol%208%20No%20381%20Archive/
> ecconomic_commentary.htm
> NOTE FROM GRAIN: The conflict between the Ethiopian government and
> Starbucks over trademark rights to Ethiopian coffee names has
> generated
> a tremendous amount of controversy, campaigning and reporting since it
> broke out last year. Yet the recent signing of a joint agreement
> between
> the two parties has not put the fires out. The below is one take on
> the outcome.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> Addis Fortune | 19 August 2007
>
> Why did Ethiopia sign an agreement critics say is favoring Starbucks?
> Wondwossen Mezlekia, an Ethiopian working and living in Seattle,
> Washington -- where Starbucks is also headquartered -- has been
> following the trademark dispute through his well-read blog,
> http://www.poorfarmer.blogspot.com. In his contribution to a series of
> articles that appeared on this newspaper, Wondowssen sheds some
> light on
> the issue.
>
> ETHIOPIA'S LOSS IN THE STARBUCKS AFFAIR
>
> Ethiopia, one of the ancient civilisations in the world, collided
> with a
> symbol of globalisation and, to some extent, challenged the status-quo
> without success. The outcome should serve third-world countries as a
> reminder of the harsh reality that they have a long way to go to get
> control of their intellectual property rights.
>
> Although Ethiopian coffees command a premium price in foreign markets,
> particularly the United States (US), farmers who grow the beans often
> live in extreme poverty. The Ethiopian coffee sector's strategy to
> trademark the famous coffee brands in all major international markets
> was an eye-opener for many of the coffee growing nations in Africa.
> But
> that effort hit a dead end in the US, home of Starbucks Corporation
> and
> this led to several months of conflict between the two.
>
> On June 20, 2007, Starbucks and Ethiopia declared that they have both
> emerged as winners. But analyses of documented facts suggest that
> there
> is more to the affair than what either side claims. The bizarre and
> mysterious ending of the dispute warrants further scrutiny of the
> accord.
>
> Whether and how the terms of the truce will benefit the Ethiopian
> coffee
> sector and the trademark project remains to be seen. What is
> unquestionable is that, because of Starbucks and the National Coffee
> Association (NCA), Ethiopia has lost the trademark for Sidamo in
> the US.
> Sadly, Ethiopia has also surrendered the moral high ground that had
> won
> it support all over the globe; it has very little to show for it.
> Besides, all the windfall economic opportunities that might have
> changed
> the lives of the poor farmers, who, for centuries, have been taken
> advantage of, have vanished into thin air.
>
> The conflict began in March 2005, when Ethiopia filed with the US
> Patent
> and Trademark Office (USPTO) to trademark the country's most valued
> brands Harar, Sidamo, and Yirgacheffe. Starbucks had filed an
> application to trademark "Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo" in 2004,
> making it
> impossible for Ethiopia to go forward with its own application
> until the
> two applicants reached an agreement to drop one. The Ethiopian
> government asked Starbucks to drop its claim.
>
> Kassahun Ayele, the former Ethiopian Ambassador to the US, now serving
> in the same position in Berlin, made the initial effort to engage
> Starbucks in discussions to resolve the matter. But his letter to
> Howard
> Schultz, chairman of Starbucks, went unanswered for over a month. When
> it did get answered, Starbucks' response was condescending.
>
> He received on April 21, 2005, a short and dismissive reply from a
> company lawyer, and a short time later, a note from a Corporate Vice
> President inviting him to attend the award event for Mr. Schultz,
> and to
> contribute 600 dollars for the 'privilege.', according to the Embassy.
>
> In October 2006, Oxfam launched an international campaign to force
> Starbucks to come to the table and discuss with Ethiopia for
> resolution.
> The campaign was framed to depict Starbucks as a company exploiting
> its
> coffee producers. The theme, "For every cup of Ethiopian coffee
> Starbucks sells, Ethiopian farmers earn 3¢", proved to be Starbucks'
> irritant.
>
> Arrogance combined with a desire to counteract Oxfam's unexpected
> campaign actions might have blinded Starbucks' management into making
> several ridiculous assertions.
>
> First, the company claimed that Ethiopia's coffee brands cannot be
> trademarked because they are generic terms for coffee, rather than
> distinctive marks. They then asserted that the trademarks are against
> the interests of Ethiopian farmers. At the peak of its charges, the
> company went on to say that Ethiopia's attempt to trademark the coffee
> brands was illegal. They exhausted all their fabricated allegations
> before running out of charges to publicly discredit Ethiopia's
> trademark
> project.
>
> Ultimately, forced by mounting public pressure, Starbucks senior
> management resorted to a different strategy without losing sight of
> their goals. They hired the Washington-based lobbying firm, The
> Whitaker
> Group, and travelled to Ethiopia to convince government authorities by
> employing alternative negotiating tricks.
>
> On the lead-up to the company executives' second trip to Ethiopia in
> February 2007 -- first trip was in November 2006 -- Starbucks
> announced
> its donation of half a million dollars to CARE International, a US-
> based
> charity organisation, for its social work in the coffee growing
> regions
> of Ethiopia. In addition, the company issued a press release with
> promises to build a farmer support centre and to double the volume of
> coffee the company buys from East Africa.
>
> During their meetings held in Addis Abeba, Starbucks succeeded in
> convincing Ethiopian authorities to divert their attention to what
> they
> called a "value-added" process. Empty promises, such as the
> possibility
> of cooperation with the country's tea and textile sector, and implied
> support through the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), were
> used
> to entice state ministers from ministries of Agriculture and Rural
> Development, Trade and Industry, Finance and Economic Development, and
> others, including Getachew Mengistie, director general of the
> Ethiopian
> Intellectual Property Office (EIPO).
>
> Noneof those sectors are as vital as the most exploited coffee
> sector,
> which continues to be the backbone of the Ethiopian economy. In
> spite of
> that, the authorities were swayed and subsequently signed on
> Starbucks'
> press release announcing their agreement to "work together". Four
> months
> after that agreement and deafening secret negotiations, the government
> representatives and Starbucks declared their signing of a "marketing,
> licensing, and distribution" agreement on June 20, 2007.
>
> The devil, however, is in the details.
>
> As a global company that fights to secure its grip over the sources of
> its coffee, it is evident that Starbucks' opposition to Ethiopia's
> trademark initiative stems from three basic elements: Royalty fees,
> monopoly over the brands and traceability.
>
> As long as Starbucks will not be expected to pay royalty fees, and so
> long as Ethiopia does not legally own the Sidamo brand, which is the
> most important brand to Starbucks -- Starbucks does not hold Harar and
> Yirgacheffe coffees in many of its stores -- signing some sort of weak
> licensing agreement, with secret details that do not mention financial
> resources to help promote Ethiopian coffee, offers a safe exit.
> Therefore, a negotiated settlement outside of administrative rights to
> own the trademarks is a viable option for Starbucks.
>
> Starbucks' concern about Ethiopia monopolising the brands is already
> non-existent, at least in the US, as Sidamo is not a registered mark.
> Also, because Starbucks buys most of its coffees through third
> parties,
> the concern about tracing the beans to the origin is automatically
> taken
> care of.
>
> Starbucks' obligations in the agreement, if any, are confidential. The
> signatories imply that Ethiopia's obligations are uncomplicated and
> the
> benefits flowery.
>
> Getachew Mengistie said Ethiopia's obligation is not to impose a
> royalty
> fee of any nature during the contract period whereas its benefits
> include a contractual provision, which recognises Ethiopia's common
> law
> rights where applicable.
>
> According to available information, however, Ethiopia's benefits
> are not
> as impressive as the words. Although common law is a valid form of
> trademark rights in the US as rights stem from use rather than
> registration in this country, not all countries have the same
> system as
> the US. In some countries, Ethiopia does not have any rights at all
> unless the mark is registered.
>
> In addition, enforcement of trademarks is expensive and probably not
> practical in every instance of infringement. That is why the
> conventional rights of registration are important -- they help prevent
> infringement and consequently avoid expensive enforcement before it
> occurs.
>
> Strikingly, the negotiation process did not fully address the promises
> made by Starbucks during the February 2007 meeting, which Getachew
> proudly refers to as the turning point that led to the resolution.
> Only
> the promotion of the output of other sectors is mentioned in the
> contract. Even that is not listed as enforceable.
>
> The government representatives failed to follow through on the rest of
> the promises, such as building a farmers support centre and
> doubling the
> amount of coffee Starbucks would buy from Ethiopia, which is
> believed to
> be only two per cent. The centre was not even a negotiating point,
> if we
> go by what Samuel Assefa (PhD), Ethiopia's ambassador to the US, said.
>
> "Starbucks is a private company; we cannot ask them to open a farmer
> support centre in Ethiopia," he told the media.
>
> But another African country leader did just that: reached out to
> private
> companies such as Starbucks, Google and Costco to attract business
> investment. His name is Paul Kagame, the president of Rwanda.
>
> Starbucks invited Mr. Kagame to deliver a corporate endorsement at the
> company's annual shareholder meeting on March 21, 2007, -- a key
> moment
> when Starbucks executives needed an African leader to paint a picture
> different from what the shareholders have come to read in the media
> as a
> result of the trademark dispute.
>
> Recent reports indicate that Starbucks eyes Rwanda for setting up the
> Farmer Support Centre.
>
> Another widely publicised promise was that Starbucks would increase
> its
> Ethiopian coffee purchases. As of this day, there is no indication
> that
> Starbucks bought more Ethiopian coffee; nor is there any way to
> substantiate this claim in the future as Starbucks buys most of its
> coffee through third parties, mainly from Germany.
>
> How else Ethiopia benefits from the agreement is either not
> defined, or
> undisclosed.
>
> "Having the commitment and support of Starbucks will help enhance the
> quality of Ethiopian fine coffees and improve the income of farmers
> and
> traders," Getachew, told the media.
>
> But Starbucks' executives do not acknowledge any such commitment.
>
> In an interview with the Seattle PI, Sandra Taylor, Starbucks senior
> vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility, said that the deal
> was not intended to set prices.
>
> "Starbucks pays based on the quality and marketplace," she said. "If
> this works right, it will lead to better pricing for high
> quality . . .
> For Starbucks, we have long paid premium prices."
>
> Starbucks would work with Ethiopian farmers to improve quality and
> crop
> yield, but not dedicating any new financial resources, according to
> the
> paper's report. The status-quo is conserved.
>
> What did Ethiopia lose? Everything it tried to gain, and then some.
>
> Starbucks succeeded in preventing Ethiopia from gaining permanent
> control of the mark Sidamo in the US market, effectively eliminating
> Ethiopia's opportunity to move beyond its cycle of poverty.
>
> In addition, the long fought battle to this ruinous end was
> exasperated
> by Ethiopia's loss of dignity in the process. Oxfam's approach of
> using
> images of poor farmers, the victims of Starbucks' insensitivity, was
> meant to coerce the company into changing the way they do business;
> but
> instead, Ethiopia once again garnered a reputation reminiscent of
> 1984.
> The country was dishonoured in front of the world while its Ambassador
> was disrespected. The trademark initiative was discredited and the
> project was delayed by over two years. As if that was not enough,
> Ethiopia was deceived by empty promises.
>
> Starbucks has still not admitted any of its wrong doings: its
> misleading
> statements, which unlawfully undermined the people's rights, and its
> disrespect to a sovereign country's Ambassador, much less apologise
> for
> trying to publicly discredit the country's efforts. To this day, the
> company has not expressed regret for its opposition that cost Ethiopia
> the opportunity to trademark Sidamo.
>
> The trademark dispute which carried the hopes of over 15 million
> people
> was concluded with a reprehensible remark by Ambassador Samuel:
> "Ethiopia salutes Starbucks for its exemplary display of global
> corporate citizenship. This alliance highlights the significance of
> visionary entrepreneurs in creating space for win-win engagements
> between corporations that operate globally and developing countries
> such
> as ours."
>
> And Oxfam celebrated "resolution" of the dispute between Starbucks and
> Ethiopia.
>
> Starbucksrecently increased its coffee prices in the US by nine
> cents a
> cup, which further widens the income gap between Starbucks and coffee
> farmers. But, the equation still remains the same: "For every cup of
> Ethiopian coffee Starbucks sells, Ethiopian farmers earn three cents."
>
> ________________________________________________________
>
> GOING FURTHER (compiled by GRAIN)
>
> Oxfam, "Oxfam celebrates win-win outcome for Ethiopian coffee farmers
> and Starbucks", press release, Washington DC, 21 June 2006.
> http://www.oxfam.org/en/news/2007/pr070621_win-win-outcome-for-
> ethiopian-coffee-farmers-and-starbucks.html
>
> Government of Ethiopia and Starbucks Coffee, "Joint statement:
> Starbucks
> and Ethiopian Intellectual Property Office (EIPO) partner to promote
> Ethiopia's coffee and benefit the country's coffee farmers", Addis
> Ababa
> and Seattle, 20 June 2007.
> http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=779
>
> Amy Goodman (host), "Following public campaign for trademark efforts,
> coffee giant Starbucks signs licensing deal that could bring
> millions to
> Ethiopian farmers", Democracy Now!, New York, 9 May 2007.
> http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/09/1515200
>
> Anton Foek, "Trademarking coffee: Starbucks cuts Ethiopia deal",
> CorpWatch, Oakland, 8 May 2007.
> http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14474
>
> David Bollier, "Starbucks, trademarks and coffee colonialism", On the
> commons, 6 March 2007.
> http://onthecommons.org/node/1108
>
> Joshua Gallu, "Starbucks, Ethiopia, and the coffee branding wars", Der
> Spiegel, 16 November 2006.
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,448191,00.html
>
> Light Years IP
> http://www.lightyearsip.net/
>
> Ethiopian Trademarking and Licensing Initiative
> http://www.ethiopiancoffeenetwork.com/
> _______________________________________________
> incom-l mailing list
> incom-l@incommunicado.info
> http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l

Via: "Pranesh Prakash"

Via: solomon benjamin

Hi,
I listened to a particularly interesting radio program
(Cand. Broadcasting Corporaton CBC1) on the history of
rock n role and Elvis (this is presumbly avaliable in
a few days at:
http://www.randysvinyltap.com/main.php?ch=1

Randy ___ (?) the RJ showed how R&R borrowed heavily
from the earlier Blues, and Elvis in particular. In
several cases, 'copying' songs but changing their
rythem, and bringing in a particular swing or
styization. This also happened when the common
practice was, when youths visiting their grandparents
houses, would take along their fav. records and
through the week end play these continously over and
over again. I presume the grandparents were a bit hard
of hearing. That was a big influence, and Randy was
able to trace out Elvis's fav. records and used them
to show how these shaped his own music.

He then made an interesting point to say that rather
than 'copy' he preferred to term it as 'spreading the
message'. I thought that here was a interesting
example of how 'piracy' can spur a 'creative culture'.


There are wider issues of property in the way such
copy culture relates to forms of capital. Perhaps 3
years BBC world that ran a series on how the Blues
music 'moved up' through the depression from the
Southern
states to the Chicago area. They had wonderful
excertps from Muddy Waters, and that lineage. They
also mentioned that when the 'market' for White
communities in the US began to boom, in a industry
flavored by racial overtones, the recording companies
sought to tone down
the radical and political, and re-package it. Certain
playing styles and tones whch conveyed a sort of hard
life --a sharp steel metallic twang made way for a
softer and smoother form more appropriate for
(white?) dance music -- furthermore, they did refer to
a role played by Elvis in this process.

This will always be the case with art, finance, and
politics so intertwined. And perhaps the radical
remains in art is its' ability to be inspired or copy
or messaged: as many would aggree, there is no one
author or artist, we are all part of creative common.
For sure some forms of big business get their way at
times, but then, just look at the Elvis Lookalikes
that we had congregating 10 days back the world over.
The king lives among the commons.

Solly



DELETE button is history. Unlimited mail storage is just a click away. Go to https://edit.india.yahoo.com/config/eval_register

Via: "Shishir K Jha"

[August 24, 2007]
http://ipcommunications.tmcnet.com/news/2007/08/24/317396.htm?p=ims

Thailand: Supachai says compulsory licensing of drugs acceptable
under WTO rules

The use of compulsory licences for drugs is a practical step
developing countries can take to exercise their rights under the
World Trade Organisation's intellectual property rules,
according to Supachai Panitchpakdi, the secretary-general of the
United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (Unctad). Dr
Supachai said the WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of
intellectual property rights (Trips) allowed members to invoke
compulsory licences to manufacture drugs or import them from
cheaper sources if necessary.

''There are two options in times of constraint or crisis,'' he
said. ''They can either manufacture drugs themselves or import
them from other sources that are cheaper. Unctad has not opposed
the idea.'' Earlier this week the Thai government said it would
import generic versions of the popular heart disease drug Plavix
from India. Officials had already issued compulsory licences for
the Aids drugs Efavirenz and Kaletra.

Dr Supachai, who before joining Unctad was secretary-general of
the World Trade Organisation, said he was glad Thailand's
compulsory licences on Aids and heart drugs had triggered global
price reductions.

However, he said, the pharmaceutical industry should be more
co-operative toward Thailand after it had invoked the compulsory
licence.

''Drug manufacturers should negotiate with Thailand. They are
not right that they are not co-operative with us. There are many
countries which want to invoke the right before us, but they
have hesitated to do so. A compulsory licence is the only
measure that the WTO permits,'' he said on August 23 in Bangkok.

Dr Supachai also said developing countries should better utilise
intellectual property rights over their biodiversity.

He said the outlook for the current WTO round was more positive
on the issue of farm subsidies, although the US president's
fast-track authority to negotiate trade deals has expired.

The Doha trade round has stalled over disagreements on farm
subsidies and opening the agricultural and manufacturing
sectors. The round is currently handled by the WTO in Geneva.

''The progress has been good. There have been clear figures as
to what extent the US can decrease its domestic support. There
hasn't been much talk on manufacturing. This will require a
rather long talk,'' he said.

Dr Supachai said the US has proposed cutting $18-20 billion in
farm subsidies, while developing countries had come up with
$10-12 billion and the EU $11-12 billion in the medium range.

He said the WTO could utilise agreements regarding developmental
aspects to benefit poor nations even though trade aspects had
not been finalised.

Unctad plans to focus on the impact of globalisation on
developing and least developed countries at its next meeting in
Ghana, he said. On the agenda will be job losses and welfare
benefits, he said.

In addition, Unctad would discuss ways to create rules for
financial aspects of globalisation such as the accounting of
hedge funds, for example.

''We have clear rules on trade globalisation and IP, but we have
none for financial aspects. Hedge funds have high leverage in
risky assets, yet they don't report that to anybody,'' he said.

Dr Supachai said developing countries must strengthen science
education curriculums and R&D if economic growth is to be
sustainable.

He said trade and investment among developing countries has
gained more importance, accounting for one third of world trade,
which has grown two-fold during the past five years.

Dr Supachai also warned the Bank of Thailand to appropriately
set priorities on an inflation-targeting monetary policy
framework.

He said worldwide inflation had been subdued in the past due to
the emergence of a huge labour force in China, but inflation has
began to rise during the past few years as Asian energy demand
has risen. ''We need to take care of inflation, but we should
not exaggerate it. This is because the economy otherwise would
not be going in the direction we want,'' he said.

Dr Supachai said the strengthening baht against the US dollar
should be considered an opportunity for local firms to expand
overseas, just as Malaysian firms have done.

The business sector should remember that the baht has actually
depreciated against certain currencies.

He said the central bank's capital control measures could be
used as a tool to handle volatility in the financial markets.

Copyright 2007 Thai News Service, Source: The Financial Times
Limited


Shishir K. Jha

Via: "Sunil Abraham"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sameer Sachdeva
Date: Aug 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: [India-egov] India Starts E-filing of Patent and Trademark Applications
To: India-egov@yahoogroups.com


India Starts E-filing of Patent and Trademark Applications
http://www.ag-ip-news.com/GetArticle.asp?Art_ID=4835&lang=en

NEW DELHI - With the participation of notable Intellectual Property
(IP) agents, practitioners and lawyers, a meeting was organized by
the Indian Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and
Trademarks on August 22, 2007, to familiarize them with the newly
launched e-filing system for trademark and patent applications in
India, according to a press release by Abu-Ghazaleh Intellectual
Property (AGIP).

Throughout the meeting, an overview of the new system has been
provided and a number of issues have been discussed including the
challenges that may be encountered while filing online applications.

"With the introduction of this user-friendly system, India joins the
USA, Japan, South Korea, China and the European Patent Office in
offering online filing for trademark and patent applications," AGIP
India office Manager, Khalid Al-Khalidi, stated.

"Applicants would now be able to file their patent and trademark
applications from anywhere in the world at any time at their
convenience through the Internet," he added.

The e-filing system was launched last month by the Indian Union
Minister of Commerce and Industry, Kamal Nath, in order to make the
filing of patent and trademark applications more smoothly and user-
friendly.

Though this system is still in its infancy, it is likely that in the
near future processing of the applications (examination,
correspondence, opposition, hearing, registration, renewal and
assignment, etc.) will be done electronically. This will provide a
transparent, error- free and round the clock services.

Presently, the Indian Office of the Controller General of Patents,
Designs and Trademarks is accepting the new applications through e-
filing; the subsequent filing (e.g. request for examination, recordal
of assignment, etc.) are to be continued in physical form.

To ensure the security and authenticity of the documents filed, a
person who is filing the application must have a digital signature.
This requirement is in accordance with the provisions of Indian
Information Technology Act of 2000.

For more information, please visit: www.patentoffice.nic.in

- --
Sunil Abraham, sunil@mahiti.org http://www.mahiti.org
Director - International Relations
Mahiti Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
"Vijay Kiran" IInd Floor, 314/1, 7th Cross, Domlur
Bangalore - 560 071 Karnataka, INDIA
Ph/Fax: +91 80 51150580. Mob: (91) 9342201521
http://www.linkedin.com/in/sunilaabraham

Via: "Anirudh Wadhwa"

Via: "gopa kumar"

Via: chan park

Via: "Tahir Amin"