Introduction
This case revolves around the conflict between Chile and Peru over the exclusive right to use the term "PISCO" as a Geographical Indication (GI) for alcoholic beverages. The petitioner, Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G., an association of Chilean producers, contested the registration of the GI "PISCO" granted in favor of Peru by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The petitioner asserted that Chile also has a historical and cultural claim to the term and sought to establish "Chilean PISCO" as a homonymous GI.
Factual Background
The petitioner represents Chilean producers of PISCO, primarily based in the river valleys of Elqui, Limari, Huasco, Copiapo, and Choapa. Chile claims a history of producing PISCO since at least 1733. The term "PISCO" is associated with both Chile and Peru, each claiming unique regional and production methods.
The Peruvian Embassy in India filed GI Application No. 43 in 2005 for "PISCO" under Class 33. The petitioner opposed it in 2007. The Assistant Registrar initially registered the GI as "Peruvian PISCO" to avoid confusion, but IPAB overturned this decision in 2018, allowing registration of the term "PISCO" without any geographical qualifier exclusively in favor of Peru.
Procedural Background
Following the IPAB's order dated 29 November 2018, which overturned the Registrar's 2009 order, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021 before the Delhi High Court. The petitioner also submitted a fresh GI application for “Chilean PISCO” (Application No. 689) on 3 June 2020. The High Court passed interim orders restraining final adjudication on this application pending disposal of the writ petition.
Core Dispute
The central issue was whether the term "PISCO" can be granted exclusively as a GI to Peru or whether Chile has coexisting rights over it. The case posed a broader question about whether Chilean and Peruvian PISCOs are homonymous GIs and whether the IPAB's decision ignored the provisions of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act) and international principles under the TRIPS Agreement.
Discussion on Judgments
The petitioner cited:
Article 22.3 and 22.4 of TRIPS Agreement: To argue that homonymous GIs from different countries can coexist if consumer confusion is avoided.
Tea Board, India v. ITC Ltd., 2011 SCC OnLine Cal 1083: To highlight the difference between GI and trademark principles.
Scotch Whisky Association v. J.K. Enterprises, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 5352: To emphasize India's obligation to recognize foreign GIs under the TRIPS framework.
These judgments and legal standards were invoked to argue that the IPAB wrongly applied trademark law principles such as prior use and misappropriation, rather than examining whether both countries’ products qualify for GI protection under the GI Act.
The respondents, on the other hand, argued that:
PISCO is exclusively associated with Peru.
The Chilean claim lacks historical and geographical legitimacy.
International treaties recognizing Chilean PISCO are commercial/political and do not amount to legal recognition.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized that the principles of GI law are fundamentally different from trademark law. GI registration is based on whether the goods originate from a particular region and have characteristics attributable to that region.
The Court noted that both Chile and Peru have a long-standing, recognized history of producing PISCO. The evidence included:
Chile’s use of the term since at least 1733.
International Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and GI recognitions acknowledging Chilean PISCO.
Awards and recognitions for Chilean PISCO globally.
Legislative actions in Chile recognizing PISCO as a national appellation.
The Court held that the IPAB had erred by labeling Chile’s use as “dishonest” and by failing to recognize the existence of Chilean PISCO despite overwhelming evidence.
It found that the GI Act permits the registration of homonymous GIs under Section 10, provided adequate safeguards against consumer confusion exist. The Court compared the case with the Indian example of “Banglar Rasogolla” and “Odisha Rasagola,” both of which coexist as GIs.
The Judge also dismissed the respondent's argument that the application filed by the Embassy of Peru was invalid, holding that such procedural arguments could not override the substantive merits of GI claims when viewed through the lens of international obligations and Section 10 of the GI Act.
Final Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. It set aside the IPAB’s order dated 29 November 2018 and restored the Registrar's 2009 decision that had granted registration of the GI as "Peruvian PISCO" rather than the generic "PISCO".
The Court directed that the Registrar reconsider the petitioner’s application for “Chilean PISCO” in accordance with Section 10 of the GI Act, which deals with homonymous GIs. It also clarified that the GI "PISCO" could not be granted exclusively to one country where another country’s use is long-standing, legally recognized, and distinctly characterized.
Law Settled in This Case
This judgment affirms that:
GI protection is a community right and not an individual monopoly.
The GI Act allows homonymous GIs under Section 10, subject to consumer protection mechanisms.
Trademark law concepts like prior use, misappropriation, or goodwill have no role in GI adjudication.
Courts must focus on the identification of goods with a specific geographical origin and characteristics, and not political or historical controversies.
International recognition through treaties and FTAs can support a claim of homonymous GI, though not conclusively determine statutory rights in India.
Case Title: Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
Date of Order: 07 July 2025
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:5339
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
