Summary: In a key ruling under India’s geographical indications law, the Delhi High court has resolved the Peru–Chile Pisco dispute by recognizing both “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO.” In doing so, it has recognised that competing geographical identities can exist alongside each other when supported by evidence.
After years fighting over the geographical indication (GI) “Pisco” on foreign shores, the long-running transnational dispute between Peru and Chile has spilled over into Indian courts as well. Two questions have been in focus here: the treatment of competing historical claims, and the recognition of homonymous GIs (where the same geographical name is legitimately associated with products from different regions).
Pisco’s Indian journey
Pisco, a grape-based distilled spirit, is closely associated with both Peruvian and Chilean heritage, with both countries claiming rights over the term in international markets. Peru maintains that Pisco originated in the Peruvian town and valley of Pisco, while Chile argues that it has produced and marketed Pisco for more than a century and possesses its own legally protected denomination of origin covering specific regions in northern Chile.
GI registry and IPAB
In the early 2000s, Peru sought to register “PISCO” as a GI in India under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Chilean producers, represented by the Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. (ADP), opposed the application, citing Chile’s historical and legal connection to the product, and arguing that granting Peru exclusive rights would unfairly exclude Chilean producers from the Indian market.
The Indian GI Registry first attempted a compromise, by granting protection, in 2009, to “Peruvian Pisco” rather than just “Pisco.” Dissatisfied, Peru appealed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which, in 2018, held that Peru was entitled to the PISCO registration without qualification.
Delhi High Court
This time, Chilean producers challenged the IPAB ruling before the Delhi High Court. In 2025, the Court overturned the IPAB’s decision and revived the earlier compromise approach. It directed Peru’s registration be limited to “Peruvian PISCO” and that Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO” also be processed. The Court emphasized that the evidence on record showed a long-standing association of “Pisco” with spirits from both countries, and granting exclusive rights to Peru would likely confuse consumers and unfairly prejudice Chile’s interests.
Here, it is useful to briefly segue into the treatment of homonymous GIs. Although GI law traditionally seeks to link a product to a unique geographical origin, international agreements such as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) recognize that two different regions may legitimately share the same geographical name. In such cases, legal systems must balance competing interests while ensuring consumers are not misled. The Court effectively treated “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO” as homonymous GIs capable of coexisting in the Indian market.
The Court also placed considerable importance on international recognition and market realities. Chile’s claim was clearly not merely historical or aspirational, having secured legal protection for PISCO for over a century, and recognition of “Chilean Pisco” in several bilateral and regional trade agreements. Such international recognition was deemed relevant in determining whether the term had acquired a legitimate association with Chilean products.
Delhi High Court Division Bench
Peru appealed the 2025 decision, seeking exclusive rights over the unqualified term PISCO. However, in March 2026, a Division Bench (DB) of the Delhi High Court (Embassy Of Peru vs Union Of India & Ors, LPA 577/2025, dated 18 March 2026) dismissed Peru’s appeal. The DB reaffirmed that neither country could monopolize the term PISCO in India and confirmed that both “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO” could coexist as protected GIs. The judgment reiterated that the purpose of GI law is not to favour one national claim over another but to prevent consumer deception and accurately identify the geographical source of goods.
Analysis of the DB decision
The Pisco case has broader implications for Indian GI law:
- It shows that India is open to accommodate transnational GI claims where historical, commercial, and legal evidence supports multiple links with a geographical name.
- It highlights how international trade agreements and foreign legal protections can shape Indian GI determinations.
- It offers guidance for future disputes around products shared across borders, such as foods, beverages, and handicrafts, claimed by more than one country.
The weight of the evidence
Here, the evidence adduced by Peru and Chile is of particular significance. Peru relied on historical records, linguistic evidence, and geographical proof to argue that the indication was uniquely and historically Peruvian. It also sought to characterise Chile’s adoption of the name as historically dishonest and derivative of Peru’s prior use.
In contrast, the ADP produced extensive documentary evidence of independent recognition, century-old domestic regulation around Pisco production, international trade agreements, foreign GI registrations, awards at international spirits competitions, and proof of longstanding global commercial use.
The DB noted that the inquiry under the GI Act was not about which country could prove earlier or superior ownership, but whether consumers genuinely connected the product with the claimed origin. On this account, the evidence showed that “Pisco” was internationally recognised as originating from both Peru and Chile. Thus, the DB sidestepped questions of priority or alleged misappropriation, concluding in favour of concurrent and legitimate geographical reputations, and recognising “Peruvian Pisco” and “Chilean Pisco” as coexisting homonymous GIs.
GI vs trademark law
The DB also reaffirmed that trademark law principles cannot be transplanted into GI law. It held that trademarks confer private, proprietary rights intended to distinguish one trader’s goods from another’s, whereas GIs are collective rights identifying goods as originating from a particular geographical region and deriving qualities or reputation from their origin. As a result, trademark doctrines such as prior use, dishonest adoption, and misappropriation are mostly irrelevant in determining entitlement to a GI. Particularly, while in trademarks law first use is often a decisive factor, priority has no role under GI law. Instead, the primary question is around geographical association and preventing consumer deception in the minds of consumers.
Pragmatic implications
From a policy perspective, Indian courts have preferred to focus on consumer protection, market recognition, and fairness, over questions of true historical origin. This allows producers from both countries to access the Indian market, while ensuring consumers can identify Peruvian and Chilean products through appropriate geographical qualifiers.
Conclusion
The Peru–Chile Pisco dispute represents one of the most important GI cases adjudicated in India. By recognizing both “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO,” Indian courts have endorsed the principle that competing geographical identities can coexist where evidence supports legitimate claims on both sides.
English
Chinese (Simplified)
Japanese