Introduction
New to Copyright Law? Start with our complete Copyright Law Guide.
The colloquially known Pisco case, aka the case of Embassy of Peru v. Union of India is a case that can be aptly headlined as “A Tale of Two Countries” as pointed out by Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar while penning the judgement. The two countries are Peru and Chile, who have been in a dispute over ‘Pisco’ which is a clear grape brandy, whose production, origin, and claim over the GI have been the crux of the matter. This March 2026 judgement was a result of an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru against the 2025 Pisco judgement. This 2025 case was filed by the Association of Chilean Pisco producers against an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018. This order was in favour of Peru granting them exclusive rights to the Geographical Indication (GI) rights to Pisco in India. Originally, in 2005, Peru applied for the exclusive GI tag of Pisco for themselves, but Chile opposed it. In 2009, the Registrar for Trademarks & GI, after examining the documents, saw that both countries used Pisco, with some countries even allowing the use to both Peru and Chile by parallel agreements. Thus, Peru’s GI application was allowed with a caveat by registering the same as ‘Peruvian Pisco’. This article primarily traces the 2025 Delhi High Court single bench judgement, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Mini Pushkarana, and the 2026 recent judgement of the Delhi High Court Division Bench. Whilst looking at these two judgements, the article will also examine the IPAB order of 2018 and delve into its reasonings.
Case History
Why did the IPAB overturn the 2009 judgement?
The IPAB on 29th November, 2018, adjudicated an appeal filed by the Embassy of Peru. The other side constituted the Chilean Producers Association. The essence of the dispute was that in 2009, the Indian Courts had allowed the use of Pisco GI as ‘Peruvian Pisco’ and ‘Chilean Pisco.’ Peru was appealing this very restriction and instead wanted full exclusive rights over the use of the GI Pisco. Peru believed that the Registrar had amended their application to ‘Peruvian Pisco’ from the originally asked Pisco. The Board finally ruled in favour of the appellant – Peru and freed them of the ‘Peruvian’ prefix and ordered the GI Registry to issue the registration certificate for the standalone mark Pisco exclusively to the Embassy of Peru. Let us take a look at the primary arguments that were assessed by the Board to reach their conclusion:
- Etymology of ‘Pisco’: The coastal region came to be known as Pisco due to its large bird population since in the native language (Quechua) the bird was known as piskko. The first known map of Peru found clearly identified Pisco to be a part of Peru. Additionally, the region was inhabited by the Piskos tribe, skilled ceramists who made earthen jugs for storing liquids. These jugs became known as Piskos and the grape brandy stored within them simply took on the name of the vessel.
- Distinguishing features of Pisco of Peru origin: firstly, the kind of grapes used – Quebranta grape, which is a strictly Peruvian genetic mutation. Secondly, no water, sugar, or other elements are added. The liquor is distilled directly to its final alcoholic volume, unlike other brandies which are often diluted with water. Finally, the process maintains traditional integrity, utilising specific earthen jars (pisqueras) for fermentation and traditional copper or tin stills heated by huarango firewood to create a specific flavor profile.
- International Recognition: PISCO as the Peruvian appellation of origin has been registered in the World Intellectual Property Organisation International Registry of the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin and their International Registration in 2005 and numerous countries across the world had formally recognised the same.
- Discrediting the Chilean claim: it was alleged that Chile renamed a town from La Unionto Pisco Elqui solely to artificially fabricate a geographical link to the liquor. Additionally, the Free Trade Agreements (FTA) used by Chile to claim international recognition were just mere political arrangements while Chile had historical, cultural and legal backing.
- Reference to the Basmati Rice case: the appellant referred to the case to provide an Indian precedent in their favour. Any GI must signify a product whose qualities, reputation, and characteristics are essentially attributable to its specific geographic origin, which in this case was aptly done by Peru and not Chile. Peru was seen as the legitimate producer needing protection from imitation and misappropriation.
Why did the 2025 Single Bench judgement set aside the IPAB order?
The 2025 judgement disagreed with the IPAB’s order and revoked Peru’s exclusivity over the GI by asking the GI Registry to modify Peru’s registration specifically to Peruvian Pisco. Consequently, the stay on the Chilean Producers Association’s pending application for Chilean Pisco was lifted.
An important aspect of this judgement was the distinction created between rights conferred by the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the Geographical Indication of Goods (Registration And Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act). The court determined that IPAB erred in its judgement when using concepts like “priority of adoption and use of a mark” which are key for determination of ownership of a trademark. “However, priority plays no role in ownership under the GI Act, the only relevant consideration is whether the goods in question are actually, and in fact, identified by that geographical origin in the relevant markets, trade channels, consumers etc.” The court highlighted that Section 9 of the GI Act only bars registrations that cause confusion, deception, or false representation of origin and not based on prior use or goodwill, which are exclusive to Section 11 of the Trademarks Act.
The IPAB’s conclusion that Chile’s use of PISCO was historically dishonest was deemed legally irrelevant. The court noted that GI law is not concerned with adjudicating historical or socio-political disputes between nations. Additionally, the court found overwhelming documentary evidence like the FTA with numerous countries, historical decrees from 1873, and international awards; which proved that the beverage originating from Chile was legally and commercially recognised worldwide as PISCO.
The court also discussed the aspect of homonymous GIs in reference to the Indian rosagolla example which is a shared GI by two states – West Bengal and Odisha. Homonymous GIs are indications that sound/spell alike, but identify products/services originating from different regions. The court acknowledged that PISCO had a shared, well documented history of production in both Peru and Chile thus, both states using geographic prefixes, justified recognition of both Peruvian and Chilean claims.
What is different in the 2026 Division Bench judgement?
Well, the most recent judgement on Pisco, which may or may not be the final one in the list of many, was the result of an appeal by the Embassy of Peru to recoup its exclusive rights on the Pisco GI. The court’s final judgment stands as Peru cannot hold an exclusive, un-prefixed GI for Pisco. If Peru chooses not to accept the modified name Peruvian Pisco it may surrender the registration, but it will not be granted Pisco per se. Let us evaluate the reasoning used by the Court.
The court held that Section 9 prohibits registering any GI that is likely to deceive or cause consumer confusion. This bar operates independently of other provisions, and factors like priority of use or equitable considerations cannot override an instance of consumer confusion. Granting the standalone GI Pisco exclusively to Peru would convey the false impression that the beverage is manufactured solely in Peru. Pisco is historically and continuously produced in both Peru and Chile, thus, an exclusive mark for Peru would inevitably mislead the consuming public. As the spirit originates from both territories (regardless of differences in quality or distillation techniques), neither country can be granted the standalone GI Pisco per se.
The Division Bench disagreed with the Single Judge’s invoking Section 10 of the GI Act as one key criteria is the requirement of an already existing registered GI on the Register with which the new application is homonymous. The Pisco GI did not exist on the Register when Peru applied, thus, section 10 could not legally apply. Additionally, a previous claim of lack of consent to add the prefix of Peruvian to the GI of Pisco was resolved through Sec 11(6). It empowers the Registrar to accept an application subject to “amendments, modifications, conditions or limitations.”
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s judgement will stand as a milestone in the GI jurisprudence of India. The Court firmly establishes that prohibitions mentioned in the Act are supreme and cannot be ignored. The court also drew a clear line between borrowing and implementing the principles of one IP into another, and how legally, that holds no relevance. The decision strikes a pragmatic balance between respecting shared international heritage and ensuring domestic market transparency, setting a strong precedent for how Indian courts will resolve overlapping, transborder designations in a globalised economy.
References
Embassy Of Peru vs Union Of India & Ors, 2026 (Delhi High Court Division Bench judgement) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181634648/
Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G vs Union Of India & Ors, 2025 (Delhi High Court Single Bench judgement) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35667092/
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 https://ipindia.gov.in/page-content/geographical-indications-act-1999
