## Facts

- A trade association representing Scotch whisky producers challenged a U.S. company’s attempt to register **LOCH-A-MOOR** for an after-dinner liqueur sold in the United States.
- The liqueur was **not** Scotch whisky and was **not produced in Scotland**.
- The association alleged the mark’s Scottish connotations (e.g., “loch”) would lead consumers to believe the product was of **Scottish geographic origin**.
- To test consumer perception, the association presented a consumer survey of **607** recent after-dinner liqueur purchasers/consumers, conducted through face-to-face mall interviews in multiple metropolitan areas.
- Respondents were shown the product bottle and asked open-ended questions about where they thought the liquor came from and why; answers were recorded verbatim, and about **40%** were later validated by telephone.
- The survey reported that about **32.7%** of respondents identified **Scotland** as the origin, commonly attributing that belief to the LOCH-A-MOOR name/appearance.

## Issues

1. Whether using **LOCH-A-MOOR** on a non-Scottish liqueur constitutes a false designation of geographic origin or geographically deceptive designation under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
2. Whether the evidence showed that a significant portion of relevant consumers were misled into believing the product was of Scottish origin and that the misdescription was material to purchasing decisions.
3. Whether the association’s consumer survey was sufficiently reliable to be admitted and credited as proof of consumer deception regarding origin.

## Decision

- The court credited the association’s survey as methodologically reliable and probative of consumer perception.
- The court found the mark’s Scottish connotation, combined with survey results, showed a substantial portion of relevant consumers believed the liqueur originated in Scotland.
- The court concluded the mark was deceptive as to geographic origin/false designation of origin as used for the non-Scottish product.
- Relief was granted consistent with that finding, effectively preventing registration of **LOCH-A-MOOR** for the product.

## Legal Principles

- A geographically deceptive/false designation of origin is shown where: (1) the designation misdescribes geographic origin, (2) a significant portion of the relevant public is likely to believe the misdescription, and (3) the geographic misdescription is material to consumer purchasing decisions.
- Consumer survey evidence can be admitted and given substantial weight when it targets the relevant purchasing public, uses non-leading questions, and includes procedures supporting reliability (e.g., verbatim recording and validation).
- Proof of deception need not show a majority of consumers; a substantial minority may be sufficient, depending on the product context and the significance of geographic origin to consumers.

## Conclusion

The court held that LOCH-A-MOOR deceptively suggested Scottish origin for a liqueur not made in Scotland and relied heavily on a well-supported consumer survey to find material deception, barring registration consistent with Lanham Act false-origin principles.


Scotch Whiskey Ass'n v. Consol. Distilled Prods., Inc., 210 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 639 (N.D. Ill. 1981)