Summary
In a ruling delivered on March 18, 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the Embassy of Peru's appeal and confirmed that both Peru and Chile have legitimate rights to the geographical indication (GI) 'PISCO' in India—provided each country uses a clear geographical qualifier. Peru must register its product as 'Peruvian PISCO', while Chile proceeds with 'Chilean PISCO'. The ruling cements the concept of homonymous GIs in Indian jurisprudence and closes a dispute that began in earnest before the GI Registrar as far back as 2005.
Background
Pisco is a grape-based distilled spirit produced in both Peru and Chile for centuries. Both countries regard it as a defining national product, and each has registered GI protection for ‘Pisco’ in numerous jurisdictions around the world.
What began in 2005 as a seemingly routine application for a geographical indication has, over two decades, become one of the most richly contested GI battles in Indian IP history – a tale of two countries, two distinct spirits, and a single five-letter word that both nations treat as a badge of national identity. The Indian chapter of this rivalry began in 2005 when the Embassy of Peru applied before the GI Registrar for registration of ‘PISCO’ as a geographical indication in India. Chile’s Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. (the Chilean Association / ADP) filed a notice of opposition, asserting an equally longstanding association between Chile and the product. In 2009, the GI Registrar acknowledged both claims and allowed Peru’s application, subject to the prefix ‘Peruvian’, so that the registered mark would read ‘Peruvian PISCO’, a solution designed to prevent consumer confusion while recognising Chilean use.
The matter did not rest there. Peru appealed, and in November 2018 the now-defunct Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) set aside the Registrar’s caveat and granted Peru an unqualified GI for ‘PISCO’, effectively handing Peru sole ownership of the unqualified name in India. This PAB order was the flashpoint for the present litigation, and Chile challenged the IPAB order by filing a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.
ADP challenged the IPAB order before the Delhi High Court in a writ petition (W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021). Separately, ADP had filed its own GI application for “Chilean PISCO” (application no. 689) in June 2020, which the court stayed pending the outcome of the writ. On July 7, 2025, a single-judge Bench set aside the IPAB order (Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025:DHC:5339), restored the Registrar’s 2009 framework of “Peruvian PISCO,” and directed that ADP’s application for “Chilean PISCO” be processed in accordance with law. The Single Judge found the case to be one of homonymous geographical indications under Section 10 of the GI Act, holding that both beverages are genuinely identified as Pisco and that grant of an unqualified standalone GI to Peru would be deceptive and confusing under Section 9(a) of the GI Act. You may read the earlier post on this matter – here.
The Embassy of Peru challenged this judgment before a Division Bench in September 2025. The Division Bench, in its ruling of 18 March 2026, closed the chapter, dismissing Peru’s appeal in full and cementing the dual GI framework.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Whether the single-judge correctly set aside the IPAB’s 2018 order granting Peru an unqualified GI for ‘PISCO’.
- Whether Section 9A of the GI Act operates as a statutory bar against granting a standalone, unqualified GI where two countries have both established use of the same indication for the same class of goods.
- Whether Peru’s arguments on historical priority and alleged dishonest adoption by Chile were relevant to the GI registration question under Indian law.
- Whether the framework of homonymous GIs under Section 10 of the GI Act, requiring geographical qualifiers to prevent consumer confusion, was correctly applied.
-
Peru’s Arguments
Peru contended that “PISCO” is an exclusively Peruvian geographical indication, derived from the name of a Peruvian city, valley, river, and port, all located in the department of Ica in southern Peru. Granting Chile co-equal rights in the GI amounted to endorsing a misappropriation.
The Embassy submitted that the IPAB had correctly determined, after a detailed hearing, that Chile’s adoption of the name “PISCO” was historically dishonest- originating from Chilean troops’ exposure to Peruvian Pisco during the War of the Pacific (1879-1883). The renaming of a Chilean city from “La Union” to “PISCO Elqui” in 1936 was presented as a deliberate legislative manoeuvre to manufacture a geographical connection where none existed.
It also submitted that Peru had secured international recognition for “PISCO” as its appellation of origin in over 20 countries under the Lisbon Agreement, and WIPO formally registered the appellation of origin in Peru’s favour in 2005. This global standing, Peru argued, should weigh heavily under India’s TRIPS-consistent GI law.
Peru argued that the petitioner’s claim of homonymous GI was raised belatedly, i.e., only in the rejoinder before the Single Judge, and the court ought not to have entertained it as a new plea at that stage.
Peru strongly asserted that a geographical prefix cannot validly be added to a GI in the manner done by the Registrar in 2009; unlike trademarks, GIs are community rights and cannot be subject to modification by the addition of a source identifier that dilutes the GI.
From a procedural standpoint, the delay in filing the writ petition by the Chilean Association, approximately 18 months after the IPAB order, was inordinate, and the petition was liable to be dismissed on that ground alone.
ADP’s Arguments
ADP argued that :
-
-
- Its case was not that Peru had no rights in “PISCO,” but that Chile had an equal and co-existing right. The beverages are different products, differing in grape varieties, distillation processes, ageing, and proof, and each is genuinely associated with its country of origin. This was a textbook case of homonymous geographical indications, not transnational GIs.
- Under Section 2(1)(e) of the GI Act, the sole relevant question is whether the goods are actually identified with a particular geographical origin and not who was the “prior user.” The GI Act, unlike the Trade Marks Act, 1999, has no concept of priority of use or dishonest adoption as grounds for refusal.
- Section 9 of the GI Act, which lists grounds for refusing registration, makes no reference to “dishonesty,” “misappropriation,” or “prior use.” The IPAB, therefore, erred in applying trademark principles to GI law.
- Long-standing Chilean legislation on Pisco dating back to 1916, 18 international Free Trade Agreements recognising Chilean Pisco, GI registration for “PISCO” by Costa Rica in Chile’s favour, and accolades at international spirits competitions all established that the Chilean alcoholic beverage is globally identified as Pisco.
- Section 10 of the GI Act expressly permits registration of homonymous GIs. In the Indian domestic context, the co-registration of “Banglar Rasogolla” (West Bengal) and “Odisha Rasagola” – two products with the same name from two different regions, demonstrated that the addition of a geographical qualifier is a legally sound and established mechanism for enabling co-existence.
- The delay argument was not fatal: ADP’s own GI application (no. 689) filed in June 2020 constituted a fresh cause of action and justified the writ petition.
-
Court’s Observations and Analysis
GI Law Is Not Trademark Law
The Single Judge’s analysis, affirmed by the Division Bench, began by drawing a sharp distinction between the rights regime under the GI Act and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Under trademark law, priority of adoption, date of first use, and dishonest adoption are central considerations for determining who holds superior rights. The GI Act contains no such framework. The court observed that Section 9 of the GI Act sets out a closed list of grounds for refusing GI registration, and none of them – including Section 9(a) (likely to deceive or cause confusion) and Section 9(g) (falsely representing geographical origin), references prior use, dishonesty, or misappropriation.
The IPAB’s 2018 order had characterised Chile’s use of “PISCO” as historically dishonest, rooted in the appropriation of a Peruvian product during the War of the Pacific. The court squarely rejected this reasoning by stating that it is not the function of a court of law, or a quasi-judicial tribunal, to adjudicate the political and military history of two sovereign nations and then convert those findings into intellectual property outcomes. The GI Act is concerned with whether goods are actually identified with a particular geographical origin in the relevant market, nothing more.
The Identification Test Under Section 2(1)(e)
The operative test under Section 2(1)(e) of the GI Act is objective: do the goods in question originate from a defined territory, and are they identified with that territory based on quality, reputation, or other characteristics essentially attributable to that origin? The court found, on the basis of extensive documentary evidence – encyclopaedia references, Free Trade Agreements, Chile’s domestic Pisco legislation spanning over a century, international spirits competition awards, and third-party trade publications that the alcoholic beverage produced in Chile’s Atacama and Coquimbo regions is consistently identified worldwide as “PISCO.” The fact that Chilean Pisco differs from Peruvian Pisco in grape varieties used, distillation method, ageing process, and proof did not undermine Chile’s claim; it underscored it. Each product carries distinct characteristics attributable to its distinct geographical origin, which is precisely the hallmark of a genuine GI.
Section 9(a) as a Bar to an Unqualified Pisco GI
Having established that both Peru and Chile are genuine GI claimants for “PISCO,” the court turned to the pivotal statutory question: can an unqualified standalone “PISCO” GI be granted exclusively to Peru? The Division Bench held it cannot. Section 9(a) of the GI Act prohibits the registration of a GI whose use is likely to deceive or cause confusion. Since Chilean Pisco is also widely identified as “PISCO,” a consumer encountering an Indian GI registered solely in Peru’s favour for the unqualified term would be misled into believing that all spirits bearing that name originate from Peru. The court noted that the statutory bar is categorical, and no amount of historical argument about priority can override it.
The Homonymous GI Framework: Section 10 and the Rasogolla Precedent
Section 10 of the GI Act expressly provides for registration of homonymous geographical indications – indications that are spelled or pronounced identically but designate products originating in different places with different characteristics. The court held that the present case was not one of a transnational GI (where the same product is produced across a shared geographical region), but of homonymous GIs: two distinct beverages, each genuinely called Pisco, each with its own provenance, grape profile, and production method.
The court drew on the domestic example of the Rasogolla dispute and noted that both “Banglar Rasogolla” (West Bengal) and “Odisha Rasagola” co-exist on India’s GI Register because both regions have a genuine, documented historical and cultural association with the same confection. The addition of a regional qualifier, such as “Banglar” or “Odisha” enables co-existence without consumer confusion. The court held that the same logic applied to Pisco. Section 10 does not require a prior registered homonymous GI to already exist on the Register; it requires only that the Registrar be satisfied that, under practical conditions of differentiation and with equitable treatment of producers, consumers will not be confused. The requirement of geographical qualifiers – “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO”, satisfied that standard. This analysis also aligns with Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which mandates that member states determine practical conditions for differentiating homonymous GIs for wines and spirits.
Peru’s Standing and the Delay Argument
On the preliminary question of whether the Embassy of Peru, as a diplomatic mission of the Peruvian state, could validly file a GI application under Section 11 of the GI Act, the court upheld Peru’s standing. Section 11 permits applications by “an organization or authority established by or under law,” and the court accepted that Peru had enacted legislation (Legislative Decree 823 of 1996) vesting ownership of Peruvian appellations of origin in the Peruvian state, thereby making the Embassy an authority authorised to represent producers’ interests. On delay, the court held that ADP’s filing of GI application no. 689 in June 2020 provided a fresh cause of action, rendering the writ petition maintainable.
Conclusion
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both parties, the Division Bench held that:
-
- Peru cannot hold an unqualified GI for ‘PISCO’ in India. Section 9A of the GI Act bars such a registration where two countries share established use of the same indication for the same class of goods.
- Both Peru and Chile have legitimate claims over the name, to be exercised as ‘Peruvian PISCO’ and ‘Chilean PISCO’ respectively.
- Arguments rooted in historical priority or alleged dishonesty are not cognisable under Indian GI law, which focuses on current production practices, regional identity, and consumer protection.
- India’s GI framework can accommodate homonymous geographical indications, as mandated by Section 10 of the GI Act and consistent with TRIPS obligations.
Case Citation: Embassy of Peru v. Union of India & Ors., LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025, High Court of Delhi (Division Bench), decided on 18 March 2026.
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels