Delhi High Court pours fairness into Pisco dispute, upholds dual GI tag

Court rules both Peru and Chile can use 'Pisco' with clear geographical qualifiers, ensuring consumers are not misled about the origin of the grape-based spirit

In a ruling that will lift the ‘spirits’ of both Peru and Chile, a division Bench of the Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that both countries can claim the famed grape-based liquor Pisco, provided consumers are not left uncertain about its origin.

 

Observing the delicate balance between trademark exclusivity and fair recognition of competing geographical claims, the court refused to grant Peru sole ownership of the name Pisco, effectively affirming that both Peru and Chile may market the drink under clearly differentiated labels.

 

The division Bench, comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, upheld an earlier decision denying Peru exclusive rights to the term. The court made it clear that the spirit cannot travel under a single national identity, and bottles must now carry clear geographical qualifiers. Peru will market its product as Peruvian Pisco, while Chile retains the right to label its spirit as Chilean Pisco.

   

The Bench observed that both countries have demonstrated long-standing and legitimate use of the mark for alcoholic beverages (alcobevs). It further held that statutory provisions under Indian law, particularly the bar in Section 9A, prevent the grant of an unqualified geographical indication (GI) in such circumstances.

 

Section 9 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, prohibits the registration of certain GIs. Grounds for refusal include misleading indications, violating laws, containing indecent matter, or offending religious sensitivities. The law also bars generic names and misleading geographical representations.

 

“Both Peru and Chile had established use of the mark Pisco for alcobevs. Section 9A bars the grant of a standalone Pisco GI to Peru,” the Bench said.

 

The dispute dates back over two decades. Peru first approached Indian authorities in 2005 seeking GI protection for Pisco. Chilean producers objected, asserting that the term had long been associated with their own grape distillates.

 

In 2009, the GI registrar struck a compromise by allowing Peru’s application with the prefix “Peruvian” to distinguish it. However, that safeguard was later removed by the now-defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board, which granted Peru broader rights in 2018, sparking fresh litigation.

 

Revisiting the matter, a single-judge Bench in July 2025 restored the balance, describing Pisco as a classic case of homonymous GIs — identical names used for products from different regions, each with distinct production techniques and characteristics.

 

The court observed that both Chilean and Peruvian variants enjoy global recognition, even as they differ in composition and production methods.

 

Drawing on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, and India’s commitments under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights framework, the single judge held that overlapping claims are legally permissible, provided adequate differentiation prevents consumer confusion. The court accordingly directed that Peru’s registration be modified to Peruvian Pisco and that Chile’s application for Chilean Pisco proceed.

 

Peru’s diplomatic mission had challenged this ruling. With Wednesday’s verdict, the division Bench has now closed that chapter, cementing a dual-identity regime for Pisco in India’s GI landscape.