Home   News   Article

Duncan Taylor Scotch Whisky may appeal after failing to win battle over name with Dores-based Loch Ness Spirits


By Gregor White

Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.



Click here to sign up to our free newsletters!
Kevin Ross and Lauren Cameron Ross of Loch Ness Spirits Limited.
Kevin Ross and Lauren Cameron Ross of Loch Ness Spirits Limited.

The owners of a fledgling spirits company on the shores of Loch Ness may have won a two-year David and Goliath-style legal battle against a whisky giant, but the losing side has signalled an appeal.

Celebrations are “on hold” as Duncan Taylor Scotch Whisky considers an appeal against Loch Ness Spirits owners.

The local firm, based in Dores, last week won the right to continue using the term “Loch Ness” in connection with its current and future production of gin, vodka, rum, whisky and other spirits.

Aberdeen-based Duncan Taylor Scotch Whisky had tried to block its use of the term, claiming Loch Ness Spirits was trading off its established reputation.

In its decision, the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO) said Duncan Taylor Scotch Whisky could not cancel trademarks belonging to Loch Ness Spirits because it failed to provide convincing evidence that it had an earlier right to use the phrase.

In its application, Duncan Taylor claimed one of its first brands was “Loch Ness whisky”, which was brought to market by subsidiary The Original Loch Ness Whisky Company.

After the ruling, co-owner of Loch Ness Spirits, Dr Lorien Cameron-Ross, welcomed the fact that the case had gone in their favour. She said the experience had been “bruising” for the company, which has only been trading since 2015.

She said: “Duncan Taylor could choose to appeal, so any celebrations of the ruling were initially on hold until that had been decided. We only decided to speak after IPO published its ruling, and we were approached by the media.”

A Duncan Taylor Scotch Whisky spokeswoman said: “On the advice of counsel, and an impending appeal, we cannot comment further at this time.”


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.



This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More