The IPKat learns CBC from that the Scotch Whisky Association has lost an attempt to oppose the registration of GLEN BRETON as a trade mark by a company producing whisky in Canada. The Association considers that the name gives consumers the false impression that the whisky is Scottish. However, the applicant, Glenora, argues that Breton alludes to the fact that the distillery is located in Cape Breton, and the Glen element identifies the fact that it is in a valley, and that water from the Glenora Falls in used. Moreover, it uses a Canadian maple leaf on its bottle. The Canadian Trade-Marks Opposition Board found that the term 'glen' was used by other Canadian producers, and would not lead consumers to believe the goods came from Scotland.

Left: Glen Breton (artwork by Aaron Bihari)

The IPKat understands that Glenora has credible reasons for selecting the elements of its mark but, at the same time, it does sound rather Scottish.
CANADIAN ON THE ROCKS CANADIAN ON THE ROCKS Reviewed by Unknown on Thursday, January 25, 2007 Rating: 5


  1. Of course it sounds Scottish - Cape Breton is in Nova Scotia - "New Scotland", and Scots Gaelic is still spoken there, albeit nearly extinct.

    Cheers, Luke

  2. The most confusing point is that the bottle and promotions for the spirit spell the term "whisky" without an "e".

  3. This Blog seems to have become fixated recently on missing or superfluous 'e's.


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.