![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sprudge.com\/file\/2018\/10\/brewers-150x150.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/sprudge.com\/file\/2018\/10\/brewers-1170x750.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
I remember when I visited my extended family in Taiwan in 1998. Lining the streets were vendors doling out the latest movie on DVD, before it even left the theater. A few years later, the girls around school were all sporting bags with the Chanel-style C patterned around them. I bought a pair of C-patterned heels for NT$100 (US$3 at that time). They were such a steal and people fawned all over them.<\/p>\n
What I didn\u2019t know was that pirated movies and counterfeit products were intellectual property rights violations, and that I was enabling the market.<\/p>\n
When I first decided to write this feature series [READ PART ONE HERE<\/em><\/a>] I had wanted to explore cultural influences in intellectual property (IP). Instead, it evolved into also looking at how developing countries manage IP and how the internet influences global coffee culture. Every country has a different approach to IP laws, and social media only makes access to other people\u2019s ideas easier.<\/p>\n IP cases in coffee that play out on the international stage tend to be dominated by large corporations\u2014that is, those entities that have the resources to take things worldwide. Patent registrations protect companies, but they also expire after a set number of years. In 1976, Nestl\u00e9 filed its first patent for its single-pod Nespresso system and subsequently filed at least 1700 more patents<\/a>. In the US, Keurig Green Mountain<\/a>\u00a0filed its first patent<\/a> for K-Cup pods in 1992. For both companies, the patents began to expire in 2012<\/a>, opening the doors to new companies and cheaper pods.<\/p>\n Most specialty coffee companies don\u2019t seem to care much about patent wars, despite some having been recently purchased by larger entities like JAB Holding Company<\/a> or Nestl\u00e9. But as specialty coffee\u2014and its accoutrement\u2014continues to be a growing industry, new coffee equipment is constantly being invented. Having ready access to social media only means the newest ideas can get knocked off easier than ever.<\/p>\n The PUSH tamper, created by UK-based Clockwork Espresso<\/a>, is one example of new coffee equipment that\u2019s been duplicated around the world. In 2015, when soon-to-be United Kingdom Barista champion Maxwell Colonna-Dashwood pulled out a strange, hockey-puck-like tamper on the world competition stage, the audience was buzzing<\/a>. The shape was unlike any tamper on the market and could conceivably solve pressure consistency issues that occur from one tamp to the next. As expected, similar products began appearing on the world market soon after. When asked about them, the founder of Clockwork Espresso\u2019s Pete Southern confirmed that they were unauthorized copies. \u201cYes, there are several replica products on the market that are produced without our permission,\u201d he said via email.<\/p>\n Southern\u2019s background is in biotech, where IP protections are common and respected, giving him a leg up on protecting his new product. \u201cWorking in this field means that I have direct experience of working with patents, litigation, enforcement, action, etc,\u201d he said. \u201cThe coffee industry currently lacks this understanding of IP, but I think this will change over time.\u201d<\/p>\n Southern plans on building an IP portfolio, which is a collection of IP registrations and assets that a company manages. He elaborated, \u201cWe will use this portfolio to protect our investment, in a strategic rather than reactive way.\u201d<\/p>\n One common misconception he points out is that \u201cpeople also don\u2019t seem to realize that selling\/distributing\/marketing an infringing product without permission is just as illegal as manufacturing it.\u201d On the flip side, patent owners are also able to license their technology, which can benefit the creation of new products without worrying about infringements.<\/p>\n In his paper<\/a> \u201cIntellectual Property Challenges for Developing Countries: An Economic Perspective,\u201d Keith E. Markus, Professor of Economics at University of Colorado, Boulder, writes, \u201cThe costs of developing a system adequate for handling mere counterfeiting cases, let alone complicated patent disputes, can be substantial.\u201d So while a developing country\u2019s economy could be open to stronger IP laws, those laws lack teeth if no one is able to enforce them.<\/p>\n Furthermore, technology licenses are expensive and benefit those who hold the copyrights, mostly companies based in the US. Markus estimated a net inflow of $5.8 billion per year in licensing fees paid to US companies.<\/p>\n At the time of this writing, the Trump administration imposed tariffs<\/a>\u00a0on Chinese goods, which is in response to<\/a> \u201calleged policies that help its native companies acquire the technology of US firms.\u201d Tariffs are predicted to harm relations between the two countries, beginning with China imposing its own tariffs<\/a> on US goods. To expand into the Chinese market, where specialty coffee is poised to grow in both consuming and producing sectors, some sharing of technology information is needed.<\/p>\n Barb and Doug Garrott are co-owners of Orphan Espresso<\/a>, a Troy, Idaho company that designs and sells coffee grinders and accessories. They\u2019ve had their \u201cproducts directly purchased, and copied, sold on Amazon, and on eBay,\u201d the Garrotts told Sprudge via email. Orphan Espresso\u2019s OE Lower Bearing Upgrade Kit (for use with the Hario Skerton grinder), Ipanema Dosing Cylinder, and standard dosing funnels are all products they\u2019ve seen directly copied by both small and large, multinational companies.<\/p>\n When the company was first starting out, applying for design patents was too costly for them. Reaching out to the companies that were copying its products only produced responses that pointed out the lack of a patent. The Garrotts learned that \u201cthe more successful, the faster it will be copied and if your R&D costs, or tooling costs are quite high, you may be copied before those costs are fully recovered.\u201d<\/p>\n And if companies use overseas manufacturers, IP protection is key. The biggest mistake that the Garrotts have seen peers make, though not made themselves, is \u201ccollaborative manufacturing, where the overseas partner became a seller of the design, to the detriment of the original manufacturer\u2014it was a costly mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n Through a Western lens, it is easy to criticize some of this as outright stealing. In his book<\/a>, \u201cTrouble in the Middle: American-Chinese Business Relations, Culture, Conflict, and Ethics,\u201d author Steven P. Feldman, Professor of Business Ethics at Case Western Reserve University, puts the viewpoint into perspective. In a Confucian society, value is placed in the collective rather than in the individual.<\/p>\n Feldman writes, \u201cRather than regarding invention as a private right, the Chinese regard public duplication of creative objects as the proper approach to the value of such objects because all creativity comes from a public repository and should contribute back to it.\u201d<\/p>\n This belief in collectivism vs. individualism is at direct odds with IP, where assets and ideas are registered and fought over. China\u2019s entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 meant that it had to agree to some basic IP laws. WTO\u2019s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights<\/a> (TRIPS) establishes \u201cminimum standards of protection and enforcement that each government has to give to the intellectual property held by nationals of fellow WTO members.\u201d<\/p>\n Feldman says that market protection and stability is far more important to the Chinese government than IP enforcement. He writes: \u201cThe Chinese government is concerned that enforcement of IP could hinder economic development by blocking access to information and technology, allowing foreign firms who own the IP to dominate the China market and creating a trade imbalance that favors the West.\u201d<\/p>\n International accords were written by developed nations and have been criticized as being a barrier for developing nations\u2019 growth. Feldman concludes, \u201cThe fact is that developing nations cannot compete with developed nations in most areas of IP.\u201d<\/p>\n Technology\u2019s Influences on Coffee Culture<\/b><\/p>\n In Vietnam, where Confucianism has a long history, coffee is both grown and consumed. Because the specialty coffee industry is newer, the values may not be as impactful as in other industries.<\/p>\n Sarah G. Grant<\/a>, Assistant Professor in Cultural Anthropology at California State University, Fullerton, studies Vietnam\u2019s cultural and economic policies in relation to the commodity coffee industry. In a written interview, Grant says the internet played a greater role in the industry than Confucianism. \u201cThe Vietnamese specialty coffee industry developed quite rapidly and I think the relative age, education level, and English language fluency has significantly shaped it,\u201d she says. At the moment, Vietnamese specialty coffee professionals are collaborative and supportive of each other.<\/p>\n Social media has certainly played a role in intellectual property and design concepts. Being able to see what a well-known cafe abroad looks like without ever leaving your country offers up an opportunity to spark ideas close to home. Grant says, \u201cA lot of these models put cafe design first\u2014some of the best-known specialty cafes in Vietnam feel like walking into a cafe in LA, Berlin, or San Francisco and I think there\u2019s something to be said for that design influence.\u201d<\/p>\n Interior design inspiration is one thing, but images, logos, and other such copyrighted or trademarked materials can be found floating across international waters. Brian W. Jones<\/a>, a designer and brand consultant to coffee companies, shared a few examples of this with Sprudge via email.<\/p>\n \u201cPoster designs that I\u2019ve made have been turned into stamps that people use like a logo on their takeaway cups, paintings on their walls, [designs on] their own t-shirts,\u201d Jones says. Most of the violators are small businesses in faraway countries, and pursuing action is often expensive.<\/p>\n When designing for a client, Jones retains only the right to display work in a portfolio. However, he\u2019s observed a client\u2019s branding pirated to a country distant from the original business. \u201cI worked on a [cafe] branding project in London that had [the company\u2019s] entire name and logo ripped off in Seoul,\u201d Jones says. \u201cThere was signage and printed cups and engraved tables, all with this logo I designed for a different company.\u201d<\/p>\n What is more concerning\u2014and why many of these protections exist in the first place\u2014is when a stolen name or trademark begins to be confused with the original holder. This tends to dilute the brand and can be damaging to the company. Jones says, \u201cPeople who would travel to Seoul began to think the London-based company had expanded to South Korea.\u201d<\/p>\n UK-based shop Kaffeine<\/a> is no stranger to having its designs and name used outside of its home country. \u00a0Peter Dore-Smith, founder and director of Kaffeine, wrote via email that despite having the logo and name registered across the EU, \u201cWe now have \u2018branches in Russia, Jakarta, Texas, Budapest, Penkridge (UK) and the latest is in Crete. There may be even one in Sydney.’\u201d<\/p>\n For Dore-Smith, a friendly reach out comes first. If it fails, then the decision to pursue legal action comes down to where their marks are protected and if it\u2019s worth the cost. \u201cThe cost of getting a solicitor to write a letter is about \u00a3300 each letter, then following up and chasing, you are looking at around \u00a31,000,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Farah Bhatti, shareholder at business law firm Buchalter<\/a>, advises her clients to protect their mark in countries where they plan on selling their products. \u201cBecause unlike the US, where it\u2019s a first-to-use country\u2026 a lot of other countries are first-to-file countries,\u201d she says. In cases where companies have registered her clients\u2019 trademarks, she ends up filing oppositions against them. Obtaining the rights ends up costing $20,000 when a registration could\u2019ve been only $3000 to $5000.<\/p>\n IP is immensely complicated, especially when you\u2019re expanding internationally. Every country has its own management system, copycat products abound in every industry, and the Internet has only made it easier than ever to adopt ideas.<\/p>\n If success is in your plans, Dore-Smith says, then you should get protection for your brand. Design can be inspired by another shop, but not by a duplication of its marks. \u201cMaking a direct copy of something is just stupid and taking the piss,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n The coffee industry has more challenges ahead in navigating IP in international waters and it may take a few high-profile cases to spur companies into taking protective action.<\/p>\n The final part of this series will focus on IP as it specifically relates to the coffee plant itself in origin countries. Missed the first installment? Click here<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n Jenn Chen<\/a>\u00a0(@TheJennChen<\/a>)\u00a0is a San Francisco\u2013based coffee marketer, writer, and photographer. Read more\u00a0Jenn Chen on Sprudge<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Intellectual Property In Coffee: A Global Game Of Clones<\/a> appeared first on Sprudge<\/a>.<\/p>\n Source: Coffee News<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I remember when I visited my extended family in Taiwan in 1998. Lining the streets were vendors doling out the latest movie on DVD, before it even left the theater….<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[39,41],"tags":[63,45,65,47,61,49,59,55,57],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1324"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1324"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1324\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1335,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1324\/revisions\/1335"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1324"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1324"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thecurbkaimuki.com\/rest\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1324"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}