Columbia Gem House Attempts to Trade-Mark “Fair Trade Gems”
~ Situation Briefing by Marc Choyt, Publisher
Columbia Gem House (CGH) of Vancouver, Washington, has nearly completed a process they began several years ago to trademark and monopolize the term, “Fair Trade Gems.” If CGH is successful, they will own that term in the marketplace. The notion that one company can file a lawsuit against anyone or any company who then uses the term “Fair Trade Gems” has massive negative ramifications for those pioneering fair trade jewelry products worldwide.
Fair Trade is rooted in a cooperative economic model that seeks to maximize benefit for producer communities. In the context of gems, it is essential to sustaining the artisanal small-scale mining (ASM) sector, which needs a vibrant fair trade market for gems to help alleviate poverty and safeguard the environment. Fair trade requires a set of standards and a third party independent audit body to verify that the claims are true. That CGH sets the standard and certifies is, to many people, a contravention of the first principles of fair trade.
CGH is widely admired for their pioneering work of in the field of ethical sourcing and fair trade gems. Their ethical claims have been accepted by the public and in the trade. Yet at this point, the precise definition of what constitutes a fair trade gem is still very much under debate. Many fair trade advocates believe that, to qualify, products must come only from community based operations and be third party certified. Today, CGH is a private company that has polishing operations in China that self certifies their product.
The CGH attempt to trademark “fair trade gems” is not only potentially troublesome to the entire ASM sector, it is contrary to spirit of the international fair trade movement, and a potential betrayal to the many of CGH’s loyal trade customers. Some view CGH’s attempt to monopolize the term applying to a generalized process as undermining the CGH’s fair trade gem stance.
I personally have only the highest regard for CGH. They have been exemplary leaders in the fair trade jewelry space. I use their gems in some of the jewelry that my company produces. Certainly, they never exercise power to the detriment of companies such as my own. Yet even if the intent behind owning the trademark is merely to safeguard the term, one company owning the language is a bad idea. At some point CGH could be bought out by another company that plays to win by suing other companies just for using the term, “fair trade gem.”
Consequently, at present, an international group, including the Tanzanian Woman’s Mining Association (TAWOMA) and several designers who actually purchase from CGH, are organizing to find a means to block CGH from owning and unfairly exploiting the term “fair trade gems.”
Current Fair Initiatives for Fair Trade Gems
CGH is just one of several groups that are claiming that fair trade simply means fairly sourced, or sourced ethically. One commonality is that everyone who claims “fair trade gems,” can trace the product seamlessly from the mine through polishing, directly to the market. Inherent to the effort is the delivery of greater benefit to the producer communities.
In an ideal world, a fair trade gem would come from a third party certified, cooperative mining community. Beneficiation, including polishing and community development, would be based in and benefit local economies. This simply does not exist. Instead, we have three different models emerging for “fair trade gems:” Co-op’s, Companies, and Collaborators
Co-operatives or associations of small scale miners
ASM co-ops ideally would be selling fair trade finished gems, similar to the Oro Verde project which sells fair trade gold from Colombia. One example of an organized group which is working on this is the Tanzania Women Miners Association.
Companies developing a fair trade process by owning the mine
Columbia Gems has pioneered this process at a ruby deposit in Malawi with their cutting tightly supervised in China. A second example of this type of company is Ruby Fair (www.rubyfair.com), which sources out of a remote village in Tanzania and polishes in Dar es Salaam. Open Source Minerals (www.opensourceminerals.com) in Madagascar also qualifies.
Individuals who contact the artisanal miners directly and develop relationships that benefit the villages based upon a fair trade ethos
They personally finance exploration and shepheard the rough to cut through a factory which they know is ethical. Guy Clutterbuck’s work with emeralds in Zambia qualifies.
It seems unreasonable and conter-productive to allow one single element in this channel, let alone one single company, CGH, to monopolize the descriptive generic term for procedures that are practiced by many companies, co-ops, and individuals.
Imagine how different things would be in the coffee trade right now if one company back in the nineteen seventies trademarked the term “fair trade coffee.” What would the market look like now if one company had that kind of monopoly on language?
“Fair Trade Gems” has the potential to be as big a market driver as fair trade coffee has become within ten to twenty years. If any one company monopolizes the trademark for this term, it will become an irreparable hindrance to growth and prosperity in some of the poorest villages in the world. The open-inclusive option is a far-better choice for everyone involved in the ethical sourcing community.
