Starbucks (NYSE: SBUX) may get its wish to own the rights to Ethiopia's regional coffee names. Starbucks had spent several months attempting to discourage the Ethiopian government from seeking trademark protection for its coffee names, but will now try to license the names from the country.

Starbucks' efforts to keep the names unprotected resulted in a predictable backlash: National media coverage and numerous organizations lashing out at Starbucks for its self-serving attitude about trademarks. Now Starbucks is doing the right thing, forking over money for the rights to distribute and market products under those names.

Starbucks has to be careful about its image. Its size and success comes with the inevitable rise in anti-Starbucks sentiment, as evidenced by sites like Ihatestarbucks.com. The company has done extremely well to date maintaining the feel of its stores, and is consistently rated one of the best companies to work for, providing benefits to part-time employees.

But blunders like the Ethiopian coffee scandal will only hurt it. The bad press Starbucks drew was probably not worth the few dollars it was trying to save.

Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) paid way, way more per pound for its coffee in 2006, the company will announce this morning -- more than any other major coffee company (according to Starbucks' own claims, anyway). In 2005 and 2006, the average commodity market price paid for coffee was $1.04 per pound; and, it's certain, far less for The Procter & Gamble Company (NYSE:PG)'s Folgers brand or Kraft Foods Inc. (NYSE:KFT)'s Maxwell House tinned coffee.

Starbucks (the company reports with obvious pleasure) paid a premium price of $1.42 per pound in 2006, up from $1.28 per pound in 2005. In doing so, the company believes it allows coffee farmers to make a profit, and gives them a "sustainable livelihood." The company also reported it had increased its percentage of coffee purchased under purchasing guidelines developed with Conservation International -- C.A.F.E. Practices -- to 53% of its total, or 155 million pounds.

This, while certainly grand, is not an indication that Starbucks is perfect. I'm certainly a fan of sustainability, even if it's trumpeted loud and proud by the corporation which practices it. In late 2006, Starbucks was roundly decried for objecting to Ethiopia's attempt to secure trademark protection for its Sidamo and Harar beans.

It's great that Starbucks is moving in the direction of better trade practices and more fair treatment of hundreds of thousands of farmers in third-world countries around the globe. However, the company needs to go all the way. I'll be chatting later today with Dub Hay, senior vice president coffee, Starbucks Coffee & Global Procurement -- and hopefully, finding out what the company will do to reduce the double-standard impression.

Sidamo. Harar. These types of coffee beans in Ethiopia speak to me more seductively than Champagne, Bordeaux, Pinot. Among coffee connieusseurs, these names are the pinnacle of all that's perfect about the bean. Naturally, Ethiopian coffee growers would like to have trademark protection for their most famous varieties.

Not if Starbucks Corporation (NASDAQ:SBUX) has anything to do with it. The coffeeshop chain has, according to British social activist Oxfam, blocked Ethiopian farmers from trademarking their beans. If Sidamo and Harar were trademarked, Ethiopians would have more control over how the names were used, raising the price for their coffee and giving them more money -- $90-$100 million each year, says Oxfam.

Starbucks is a part of the National Coffee Association, which has filed to block the trademark application with the USPTO, and disputes that it was the company's idea. Starbucks doesn't appear to be disputing the block, however; which seems just as bad, to me. Oxfam suggests that Starbucks enter into voluntary licensing agreements with Ethiopia (and they may, indeed, do so -- Starbucks has historically made efforts to treat coffee growers fairly). I'd like to see more proaction on the part of Starbucks than "but it wasn't our idea!" and I'm disappointed with the NCA -- really, give the poor farmers their IP already!

Across the Weblogs, Inc. network a brand-new blog has opened (welcome to the excellent StyleDash!), and I was searching its pages for nuggets that might affect stocks we cover. I think we can all agree (for instance) that Wal-Mart: not stylish (no matter what the very à la mode Anne Metz says, I won't believe it). GE? Nice commercials, but not stylish. Apple? Hella stylish. eBay? Jury's out.

And as we're ticking off the companies that are oft-featured here on BloggingStocks, the biggest question that sprung to mind: how does Starbucks Corporation (NYSE:SBUX) rate on style factor? As someone who mercurially flits from independent, locally-owned, ultra-hip coffee shop to Starbucks and back again, sometimes in a single day, I'm brilliantly positioned to say: not high. Styledash's Nic Lloyd couldn't agree more.

He says, "I was tired of Starbucks and other chain coffees -- tired of the taste and the price." He finds something better, an Ethiopian coffee called Dancing Goats. It's not that much different from the Ethiopian pours I've raved for myself. Let's face it, Starbucks, fashionistas have long since left your faux Euro tables and turned to more fabulous barstools, where the coffee tastes of orchids, wild blueberries and vanilla ... not burnt beans.

After all, the most famous customer of Starbucks today? Britney Spears. I needn't (I think you'll agree) say more.