The Delhi High Court has held that Peru is not entitled to exclusive registration of the Geographical Indication (GI) “PISCO” in India, ruling that such grant would lead to consumer confusion given the longstanding use of the term for alcoholic beverages in both Peru and Chile.
A Division Bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla was adjudicating an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru challenging a Single Judge’s decision that limited its GI rights to “Peruvian Pisco” instead of the standalone term “PISCO.”
The Court held that under Section 9(a) of the Geographical Indications Act, any GI that is likely to deceive or cause confusion cannot be registered. It noted that “Pisco” has been used for decades to describe alcoholic beverages produced in both Peru and Chile, and therefore granting exclusive rights to Peru would mislead consumers into believing that all “Pisco” originates solely from Peru.
Rejecting Peru’s argument that Chile had dishonestly adopted the term, the Court found no credible evidence of misappropriation. It observed that Chilean “Pisco” has enjoyed global recognition for nearly a century, supported by domestic legislation and international trade agreements, making the likelihood of confusion inevitable if exclusivity were granted.
The Bench clarified that while Peru may satisfy the definition of a GI under Section 2(1)(e), such entitlement remains subject to the prohibitions under Section 9. In this case, the bar under Section 9(a) was decisive. However, the Court held that Section 9(g), which concerns false representation of origin, was not attracted as Peru was not misrepresenting the origin of its product.
Significantly, the Court endorsed the approach of using a geographical qualifier to avoid confusion, thereby upholding the registration of “Peruvian Pisco” instead of granting Peru exclusive rights over “PISCO.” It emphasised that GI law does not prioritise historical claims or prior use in the same manner as trademark law, but focuses on preventing consumer deception.
Accordingly, the appeal was decided against Peru’s claim for exclusive GI protection, reinforcing that where identical indications are used across jurisdictions, consumer clarity must prevail over exclusivity.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Jithin M. George, Mr. R. Abhishek and Mr. B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Rigved Prasad and Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocates.
