The Delhi High Court on Thursday refused to grant interim relief to the Embassy of Peru in its challenge to a July 7 judgment which directed that the Geographical Indication (GI) mark earlier registered in favour of Peru for "PISCO" liquor be modified to “Peruvian PISCO" [Embassy of Peru Vs. Union of India].
The Court declined to stay the processing of Chile’s application for the recognition of “Chilean PISCO”, pending the adjudication of the plea filed by the Peruvian Embassy.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla has directed that the case be listed for final hearing on October 15, 2025. However, it declined to grant any interim relief in the meanwhile.
"We are not convinced that irreparable loss [will be caused]. It will be appropriate if the appeal itself is heard," the Court said.
The case concerns a long-running dispute between Peru and Chile over the right to use the name PISCO for their grape-based spirits.
The Embassy of Peru first applied in 2005 for GI protection in India for "PISCO." Chilean producers opposed the application, arguing that the name had long been used for grape-based spirits made in specific regions of Chile.
In 2009, the GI Registrar accepted Peru’s claim but directed that the spirit be registered as “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid confusion. That direction was overturned in November 2018 by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which granted Peru exclusive rights to the bare term "PISCO." The Chilean association then approached the Delhi High Court against the IPAB's ruling.
On July 7, 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the IPAB order, holding that the dispute concerned homonymous GIs — identical names from different geographical origins but with distinct characteristics.
The Court directed that Peru’s registration be modified to “Peruvian PISCO” and that Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO” be processed.
This single judge ruling has now been challenged by Peru before a Division Bench of the High Court.
Appearing for the Embassy of Peru, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul pressed for interim protection, contending that the absence of such relief caused serious prejudice.
He argued that PISCO is part of Peru’s cultural identity and global recognition.
“Eighty-two countries have accepted PISCO as Peru’s GI. Only India has said otherwise. The damage is irreparable, and we as a country are aggrieved,” Kaul submitted.
Calling the case unprecedented, he told the Court that this was the first time two nations were fighting over GI rights before an Indian court.
He added,
“This is 300 years of our heritage. We have details from memoirs of former presidents saying Chile has not been able to manufacture PISCO.”
The Chilean association, represented by Advocates Shwetasree Majumder of Fidus Law Chambers, opposed Peru's plea.
Chile questioned the maintainability of the plea, adding that an appeal against an order on a writ petition under Article 226 would lie before the Supreme Court of India and not before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Division Bench eventually opined that interim protection was not warranted in the matter and that Peru’s concerns can be examined when the matter is finally heard.