The botom video was made by a Starbucks representative and the top video is from Arnold and Porter, which represents the Ethiopian government.
A Law.com article discussing the dispute is here.
The trademark issue (as opposed to the overall business issue) is that Ethiopia filed for standard trademark, as opposed to certification mark, protection for the names of several coffee-growing regions in Ethiopia. Here’s the most recent office action in Ethiopia’s HARRAR application.
If a region’s name has commercial value, as is the case here, then it is to the benefit of the merchants in that region that a single entity is motivated to protect that name – so some sort of protection is needed.
However, as the Law.com article states, the general consensus is that GIs are preferable to standard trademarks. I agree with both parts of that statement – GIs are preferable and it is the general consensus that they are preferable.
Ethiopia’s U.S. lawyer states that the Ethiopian government does not prefer GIs because it would have less control over the marketing and sale of the coffee, and that would result in lower prices for the producers. It’s true that Ethiopia would have less control and the speculation that that would result in lower prices for growers is plausible. But that might not be the only consideration.
In the U.S., a merchant that complies with the articulated standards for a certification mark, can use the mark. Thus, in theory, different growers from a region can use the name to indicate origin, and act independently of each other and cut its own deals.
As for a standard trademark, the trademark owner can prohibit any third party from using the mark. Thus the growers can be cartilized by the trademark owner, which can be a good or bad thing (probably both). In this case, growers in a particular region could lose the right to accurately indicate where their product comes from, if they do not have authorization from the trademark owner. This is scenario contravenes the policy behind the prohibition of the registration of geographical names as trademarks.
Again, this post deliberately does not address the ‘fairness’ issue of Starbucks’ economic relationship with Ethiopian coffee growers.
Background (with link to PTO materials on geographical indicators) here.

Text of Microsoft press release on cybersquatting initiatives:
LONDON, and REDMOND, Wash. — March 14, 2007 — Microsoft Corp. today announced new legal actions against cybersquatters in the United Kingdom and the United States, which include expansion of a lawsuit filed in Seattle in August and the filing of a new federal lawsuit against the U.S. company Maltuzi LLC for trademark infringement. In addition to these new actions, Microsoft revealed it has settled a domain infringement settlement with the Dyslexic Domain Company Limited from the United Kingdom and two U.S. civil lawsuits filed against defendants in Salt Lake City and Los Angeles.
Cybersquatters register Internet domain names (such as winowslivemessenger.com and www.micr0soft.co.uk) containing not only widely recognized trademarked names and brands but also misspelled variations of them, which often result in tricking unsuspecting computer users and illegally profiting from them through online ad networks. Screens filled with pay-per-click advertisements greet visitors to these Web sites, which can generate revenue for the registered domain owner and the online ad network. Microsoft has reclaimed more than 1,100 infringing domain names worldwide in the past six months with the help of Microsoft researchers led by Yi-Min Wang, who has played a major role in the company’s efforts to combat cybersquatting.
“These sites confuse visitors who are trying to reach genuine company Web sites, which can negatively affect corporate brands and reputations as well as impair the end-users’ experience online,” said Aaron Kornblum, senior attorney with Microsoft. “With every ad hyperlink clicked, a registrant or ad network harvests cash at the trademark owner’s expense, while derailing legitimate efforts by computer users who are trying to go to a specific Web site.”
Microsoft is also investigating potential violations of intellectual property law in other nations. “We hope that our stance and activity on this issue will help motivate and empower other companies whose brands are abused to take action,” Kornblum said.
U.S.: New and Amended Actions
Microsoft has filed or amended four civil suits in the United States:
•
Microsoft Corp. v. Maltuzi LLC, Case No. C07-1419 (N.D. California). Microsoft alleges that the California company has profited from domain names that infringe on Microsoft® trademarks. Microsoft further alleges that Maltuzi is a large-scale “domain taster” that registers large blocks of domain names, some of which infringe on Microsoft’s intellectual property rights, that it either retains or “drops.”
•
Microsoft Corp. v. Sule Garba, Darin Grabowski and Yi Ning, Case No. 06-1192RSM (W.D. Wash.). Microsoft has amended a civil lawsuit filed in August 2006 in federal district court in Seattle against the owners of 217 infringing domain names who masked their true registration information behind privacy protection shields. In the lawsuit, Microsoft originally named John Doe defendants 1–217 (a legal technique that permits further investigation to uncover actual identities), and has now successfully identified the owners of all 217 domains. Today, Microsoft is amending that complaint to name three defendants who collectively are alleged to have owned at least 135 infringing domain names.
•
Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1–54, Case No. 07-2-08568-8 SEA (King County Superior Court, Washington). Microsoft has filed a civil lawsuit in state court in Seattle against John Doe defendants 1–54 to unmask defendants hiding their identities.
•
Microsoft Corp. v. John Does 1–105, Case No. C06-1766JLR (W.D. Washington). In December 2006, Microsoft filed a civil lawsuit in federal district court in Seattle to identify defendants who have allegedly registered infringing domain names and “parked” them by associating them with online ad network monetization services. The case is pending.
New and Settled Actions in the United Kingdom
Microsoft has conducted five new legal actions in the U.K. against companies allegedly having registered domain names infringing on Microsoft’s trademark and other statutory and common-law rights. In addition to these actions, Microsoft reached a settlement with U.K.-based Dyslexic Domain Company Limited, which Microsoft alleged had registered more than 6,000 domains. In addition to a monetary payment to Microsoft, Dyslexic Domain Company Limited agreed to other confidential settlement terms.
U.S.: Civil Lawsuits in Utah and California
Microsoft has also settled two federal civil lawsuits filed in August 2006 against five named defendants who allegedly profited from domain names that infringed on Microsoft trademarks:
•
Microsoft Corp. v. Cox et al: Case No. 2:06cv00692 TS. Microsoft filed this case in Salt Lake City, alleging that the defendants and their businesses had registered 324 domain names targeting Microsoft. The settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for permanent injunction against all defendants, a $2 million judgment as to defendants Jason Cox of New Mexico and Newtonarch LLC, the Utah-based business of the remaining individual defendants, and other confidential terms.
•
Microsoft Corp. v. Brown: Case No. cv06-5247R. Microsoft filed this case in Los Angeles, alleging that the defendant had registered 85 domain names targeting Microsoft. The settlement ends the litigation with a stipulated order for permanent injunction and a $1 million judgment as to defendant Dan Brown of California dba Partner IV Holdings, and other confidential terms.”

Coutesy WSJ Online, text of Viacom v YouTube complaint here.
I wonder what’s the highest damages demand ever in a copyright case. UPDATE: $1.65 trillion. Why not ask for a gazillion dollars?
MORE UPDATE: Google Watch highlights 18 arguments in Viacom’s complaint.
Prof Goldman comments.
EFF Comments.
BuzzMachine makes an interesting point about the benefit of authorized videos on YouTube.

Viacom Press Release:
NEW YORK, March 13 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Viacom Inc. (NYSE: VIA and
VIA.B) today announced that it has sued YouTube and Google in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for massive intentional
copyright infringement of Viacom’s entertainment properties. The suit seeks
more than $1 billion in damages, as well as an injunction prohibiting
Google and YouTube from further copyright infringement. The complaint
contends that almost 160,000 unauthorized clips of Viacom’s programming
have been available on YouTube and that these clips had been viewed more
than 1.5 billion times.
In connection with the filing, Viacom released the following statement:
“YouTube is a significant, for-profit organization that has built a
lucrative business out of exploiting the devotion of fans to others’
creative works in order to enrich itself and its corporate parent
Google. Their business model, which is based on building traffic and
selling advertising off of unlicensed content, is clearly illegal and is
in obvious conflict with copyright laws. In fact, YouTube’s strategy
has been to avoid taking proactive steps to curtail the infringement on
its site, thus generating significant traffic and revenues for itself
while shifting the entire burden – and high cost – of monitoring YouTube
onto the victims of its infringement.
This behavior stands in stark contrast to the actions of other
significant distributors, who have recognized the fair value of
entertainment content and have concluded agreements to make content
legally available to their customers around the world.
There is no question that YouTube and Google are continuing to take the
fruit of our efforts without permission and destroying enormous value in
the process. This is value that rightfully belongs to the writers,
directors and talent who create it and companies like Viacom that have
invested to make possible this innovation and creativity.
After a great deal of unproductive negotiation, and remedial efforts by
ourselves and other copyright holders, YouTube continues in its unlawful
business model. Therefore, we must turn to the courts to prevent Google
and YouTube from continuing to steal value from artists and to obtain
compensation for the significant damage they have caused.”

“Edison was adamant that Edison recordings would be played only on Edison phonographs. His competitors, Victor and Columbia, shared the same playback technique, etching a laterally cut groove that sent the needle moving horizontally as the record played. Their recordings could be played on one another’s machines. Edison, however, adopted his own design, a groove that varied vertically, called at the time a “hill and dale” cut. An adapter permitted Victor records to be played on an Edison Disc Phonograph, but Edison forbade the sale of an attachment that permitted his records to be played on competitors’ machines.”
From “Edison the Inventor, Edison the Showman” – The New York Times.

justabill.jpg
Let me anticipate two questions.
C-Span is not a government entity, but a not-for-profit consortium backed by the cable industry, and, all other things being equal, can own and assert copyright.
Second, a congressperson showing a bit of C-Span footage of a congressional hearing on the congressperson’s website, would seem to be fair use.
OK, C-Span asked Speaker Pelosi to remove a clip of its coverage of a House committee hearing on global warming from her blog. This apparently after Republicans accused Pelosi of violating C-Span copyright.

Now C-Span has changed its policy to allow the Speaker of House to show footage of congressional hearings on her website.
Schoolhouse Rock materials available here.