Summary
In a case brought by Peru’s IP authority against the GI registration of “Pisco” by a Chilean trade association, the Delhi High Court ruled that GI protection under Indian law does not require exclusivity. The Court confirmed Chile’s right to register “Pisco” while leaving the door open for Peru to file its own application.
Pisco GI Dispute
“Pisco” is a grape-based spirit produced in both Peru and Chile. Each country treats it as a national product and asserts GI rights over it.
In India, the Chilean Association of Pisco Producers registered “Pisco” as a geographical indication (GI) in 2018. Peru’s IP office, INDECOPI, opposed the registration and filed a rectification petition, claiming that “Pisco” exclusively denotes Peruvian origin.
The Deputy Registrar of GIs dismissed Peru’s petition, and INDECOPI appealed to the Delhi High Court.
Issues before the Court
-
-
- Is Chile’s GI registration for “Pisco” misleading under Sections 9(a) and 9(c) of the GI Act?
- Can “Pisco” be protected as a GI for more than one country?
-
Key Arguments
Peru argued that Chile’s use of “Pisco” misleads Indian consumers and violates international treaty principles. It said the GI registration should be rectified.
Chile, in response, argued that its use of “Pisco” is legitimate and historically established. It pointed out that the GI Act permits registration if the goods originate from a defined region and meet quality standards. It also highlighted that the Indian statute does not require exclusivity.
GI, Exclusivity, and Confusion
In its analysis, the Court noted that Indian GI law does not require a product to be uniquely associated with one country. As long as the goods originate from a defined territory and meet the necessary quality and reputation criteria, registration can be granted.
It found that Chile’s GI application met the requirements of the GI Act. It also found no evidence that Indian consumers were misled or confused by Chile’s use of “Pisco.”
The Court rejected Peru’s reliance on international agreements that India is not party to, and stated that GI claims in India must be tested solely under Indian law.
GI Validity and Order
The Court upheld Chile’s GI registration for “Pisco” and dismissed the appeal. It clarified that Peru remains free to apply for its own GI registration for “Pisco” in India.
Relevant Paragraphs
On Exclusivity of GIs
“The GI Act does not require that a geographical indication be exclusive to a single country.” (¶40) On Misleading Consumers “No material is placed to show that Indian consumers are confused or misled by Chile’s use of ‘Pisco’.” (¶44) On Peru’s Rights “This order does not prevent Peru from seeking GI protection for ‘Pisco’ in India in accordance with law.” (¶47)
Disclaimer: This case note has been prepared using a proprietary AI application, and is based on the author’s understanding, views, and conclusions. Opinions of others may differ.
Citation: Republic of Peru v. Deputy Registrar of Geographical Indications & Ors., C.A.(COMM.IPD-GI) 2/2023, decided by the Delhi High Court on 3 July 2025, available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187275476/ (last visited July 8, 2025).
Article and Accessibility Review by Gaurav Mishra