Delhi High Court rejects Peru's claim against Chile for exclusive right over name of alcoholic beverage PISCO

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal by Embassy of Peru challenging the judgment which ruled that both Peru and Chile have legitimate claims over alcoholic beverage 'PISCO' and both must use geographic identifiers (GI) to prevent consumer confusion [Embassy of Peru Vs Union of India & Ors]..A Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla ruled that Peru cannot claim exclusive rights over 'PISCO'. Thus, Peru has to use 'Peruvian PISCO' while Chile's claim to 'Chilean PISCO' stands recognised, the Court effectively ruled."Both Peru and Chile had established use of the mark 'PISCO' for alcoholic beverages. Section 9A is a bar to the grant of a standalone Pisco GI to Peru," the Court held..In a judgment delivered on July 7, 2025, single-judge Justice Mini Pushkarna had held that both countries have legitimate claims to the name 'PISCO' but directed that the Peruvian registration be modified to “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid consumer confusion. The ruling came in a challenge by Chile to a 2018 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had granted Peru exclusive rights over the term without any geographical qualifier..The dispute dates back to 2005 when the Embassy of Peru applied for GI protection in India for 'PISCO'. Chilean producers opposed the application, asserting longstanding use of the term for grape-based spirits produced in Chile. While the GI Registrar in 2009 accepted Peru’s claim subject to the prefix “Peruvian,” the IPAB later removed this safeguard.The single judge held that the case involved homonymous geographical indications—identical names used for products from different regions with distinct characteristics. It found that both Chilean and Peruvian PISCO enjoy international recognition but differ in production methods and composition.Relying on the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and India’s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the Court ruled that Indian law permits registration of such homonymous GIs, provided they are distinguishable to avoid misleading consumers.The Court directed modification of Peru’s GI to “Peruvian PISCO” and asked the Registry to process Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO.” .Embassy of Peru challenged this judgment before the Division Bench in September 2025.The Division Bench today dismissed Peru's appeal and upheld the single-judge decision..Embassy of Peru was represented by Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and J Sai Deepak with advocates Prashant Gupta, Jithin M George, R Abhishek and B Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu..The Chilean association was represented by advocate Shwetasree Majumder of Fidus Law Chambers..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.