By Vikrant Rana and Shilpi Saurav Sharan
Introduction
In a significant ruling concerning the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 the Delhi High Court has dismissed the Embassy of Peru’s appeal (In the Matter of Embassy of Peru v. Union of India and Ors 2026:DHC:2259-DB) seeking an exclusive Geographical Indication (GI), “GI PISCO”, over the alcoholic beverage known as Pisco, holding that both Peru and Chile possess legitimate and long-standing claims to the name.
Factual Background
Pisco is a grape-based brandy produced in both Peru and Chile, and both nations have long disputed which country is the true origin of the spirit. Peru has historically sought international recognition of Pisco as an exclusively Peruvian product. This legal battle brought that dispute to Indian soil — marking the first time two countries have contested geographical indication rights before an Indian court.
The Court’s Ruling
A division bench comprising Honourable Mr. Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla upheld an earlier July order by a single judge. The bench ruled that:
- Peru may use the GI “Peruvian Pisco” to distinguish its product.
- Peru cannot claim exclusive GI rights over the standalone term “Pisco” in India.
- Both Peru and Chile have an established history of using the mark ‘Pisco’ for alcoholic beverages.
Legal Intricacy Involved
The court invoked Section 9(a) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which bars the grant of a GI when, “the use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion” The bench noted that while Peru has an undoubted historical connection with the production of Pisco brandy (Chile did not dispute this), however Chile too, for nearly a century, has used the moniker Pisco to denote the alcoholic beverage produced within its borders. The bench cited legislation passed by Chile, as well as Free Trade Agreements signed between Chile and other nations, to show Chile’s extensive history in the shared production of Pisco brandy. Since, both Peruvian and Chilean Pisco had coexisted for at least a century over the globe, granting Peru an exclusive GI would undoubtedly lead to confusion as –
“…If, Peru were to use the GI PISCO, the impression conveyed to the public is that the spiritous beverage Pisco is manufactured in Peru. That, however, is not the truth, as Pisco is manufactured, not just in Peru, but also in Chile, though the two Piscos may be different in quality and characteristics. The use of the GI PISCO by Peru, therefore, is bound to confuse consumers, as, if they were to encounter Chilean Pisco, they would presume that it is Peruvian, and vice versa. Neither Peru nor Chile can, therefore, be granted the GI PISCO, per se”. [Para. 80]
Significance
This ruling sets a landmark precedent in Indian IP law for several reasons:
- It is the first inter-country GI dispute adjudicated by an Indian court.
- It establishes that Indian courts will assess the historical and commercial use of a GI mark by multiple claimants rather than automatically deferring to one nation’s claim.
- It reflects India’s nuanced approach to international GI disputes under its domestic IP framework.
What’s Next?
While Peru retains the right to market its product as “Peruvian Pisco” in India, the ruling effectively opens the Indian market’s GI framework to Chilean Pisco producers on equal footing, which would have broader implications for other internationally contested GI products in the future.