All's fair ... in trade?

The IPKat has become increasingly curious about the FAIRTRADE trade mark. Visiting the Fairtrade Foundation's website, he has learned that
"The FAIRTRADE Mark is an independent consumer label which appears on products as an independent guarantee that disadvantaged producers in the developing world are getting a better deal.

For a product to display the FAIRTRADE Mark it must meet international Fairtrade standards. These standards are set by the international certification body Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (FLO).

Producer organisations that supply Fairtrade products are inspected and certified by FLO. They receive a minimum price that covers the cost of sustainable production and an extra premium that is invested in social or economic development projects".
This is most commendable, except that the IPKat has noticed that there seem to be quite a few Fairtrades around. Is there a cottage industry in fair trade licensing? And what happens if a prospective licensee, refused "fair" status, incorporates the words "fair" and "trade" within his trade mark or trade name? Is anyone actively researching into the legal and commercial implications of fair trade certification? The IPKat would love to know. Merpel, ever the cynic, can't help wondering if there isn't some dreadful gain to be made from the certification of unfair trade too ...

More on fair trade here and here
Unfair trade here
All's fair ... in trade? All's fair  ... in trade? Reviewed by Jeremy on Monday, February 26, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Also see:

  2. QM CCLS is researching Fair Trade. Don't know if they're looking at TM implications though.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.