The Delhi High Court set aside the 2018 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had granted exclusive Geographical Indication (GI) rights over the term “PISCO” to the Republic of Peru. The Court ruled in favour of the petitioner, Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G., a Chilean producers’ association holding that both Chile and Peru are entitled to protection for the term “PISCO” under Indian GI law as homonymous geographical indications.
The petitioner had challenged the registration granted to “PISCO” in favour of Peru without the prefix “Peruvian,” arguing that Chile also has a longstanding and internationally recognized history of producing the alcoholic beverage called “PISCO.” The Court took note of this, highlighting that various Free Trade Agreements and international instruments acknowledge “PISCO” as a product of both Chile and Peru.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the IPAB had erroneously dismissed Chile’s claim and referred to its version of the drink as mere “Chilean liquor.” The Court clarified that under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, there is no requirement for exclusive origin or historical priority. It emphasized that GI protection—unlike trademark rights—is a collective, regional entitlement based on geographic association, not on prior use or misappropriation.
Importantly, the Court recognized the concept of homonymous GIs, i.e., geographical indications that are identical in name but relate to products from different regions. Referring to Section 10 of the GI Act and India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the Court drew parallels with coexisting Indian GIs like “Banglar Rasogolla” and “Odisha Rasagola.” It concluded that a similar arrangement is appropriate for “Chilean PISCO” and “Peruvian PISCO,” especially since consumer confusion can be mitigated through clear labelling and disclosure.
Accordingly, the Court directed the GI Registry to consider the Chilean association’s application for registration of “Chilean PISCO” and held that the exclusive GI granted to Peru without a prefix could not stand.
Appearances in the case:
Petitioner: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Rigved Prasad, Mr. Ritwik Marwaha, Advocates
Respondents: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Advocate for R-1 and R-2
Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Jithin George, Mr. Gaurav Sindhwani, Advocates for R-4
