In reply to RomTheBear:
> This is about protecting the origin of a product. I have no problem with that, for example Scotch whisky must be from Scotland, Champagne from champagne... etc etc
> However this is not the case here.
Protecting the origin of a product is one thing, but it's nothing to do with trademarks. You absolutely couldn't trademark "Scotch whisky" because it's a generic term for a style of whisky produced by a number of different firms in a specific place, so the protection would either have to be via Protected Origin status or something similar (if you want to establish it as a style having certain qualities as well as geographic origin) or just trades descriptions (if it's just about where it's produced).
A trademark basically protects the time and effort that a company puts into building up a recognised and respected brand around a distinctive word, phrase or logo used in relation to a specific class of product. It seems reasonable that under some circumstances the trademark could be a placename, regardless of whether or not the product has any links with that place. Halifax seems like a reasonable example of this. Glencoe, as registered by the NTS, obviously isn't.
What seems really bizarre, though, is the NTS's idea that because they own (some of) the land that a place name is associated with, they also naturally ought to have the right to get to decide who can use that place name commercially, regardless of what they're doing with it themselves.