Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3377
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
ASOCIACION DE PRODUCTORES DE PISCO A.G. – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021 | CM 139/2022 | CM 59/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr.Aditya Verma, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Rigved Prasad, Mr. Ritwik Marwaha
For the Respondents: Mr. Vijay Joshi, Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Jithin George, Mr. Gaurav Sindhwani
Registration of geographical indications must ensure clear differentiation to avoid consumer confusion, particularly when multiple countries claim rights to the same indication, as established by the GI Act.
Headnote:(A) Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(e), 10, and 9 - Geographical indication registration for PISCO - Impugned order set aside; GI application for Peruvian PISCO retained, while application for Chilean PISCO permitted to proceed. The petitioner claimed equal rights over the GI name along with the respondent but the court found that registration of PISCO without indicating the country can cause consumer confusion regarding origins. (Paras 77-92)
(B) GI Registration - Definition and scope - The distinction between GI and Trademark Law was emphasized, clarifying that GI relates to community rights rather than private ownership. (Paras 21-23)
(C) Misappropriation and rights - The court noted no evidence of deception or confusion justifying an exclusive GI for PISCO without defining the geographical distinction. (Paras 70-88)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to gi application for pisco. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. factual background of gi applications. (Para 6) |
| 3. petitioner’s arguments on shared history. (Para 7) |
| 4. respondents’ defense of peru's gi rights. (Para 8) |
| 5. judicial observations on gi laws. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. definition and significance of gis. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. comparison between gi act and trade mark act. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. importance of identifying chilean pisco as gi. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 9. referenced international treaties and recognition. (Para 29 , 30) |
| 10. historical context of pisco production. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. legislative actions regarding pisco. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. identification of pisco brands and products. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 13. deceptive potential if pisco is unqualified. (Para 39 , 40) |
| 14. clarification on gi law vs. trademark considerations. (Para 41 , 42) |
| 15. focus on geographical connections over history. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 16. assessment for gi validity based on consumer recognition. (Para 46 , 47) |
| 17. misapplication of historical narratives in legal judgments. (Para 48 , 49) |
| 18. clarification of production zones in relation to pisco. (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 19. evidence of chilean pisco production legitimacy. (Para 53 , 54) |
| 20. conceptual understanding of homonymous gis. (Para 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 21. framework for homonymous gi recognition. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 22. call for clarity and differentiation in gis. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 23. examples of homonymous gis in india. (Para 64 , 65 , 66) |
| 24. demonstration of distinct pisco products. (Para 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 25. international recognition and characteristics of pisco. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74) |
| 26. (Para 75 , 76 , 77 , 78) |
| 27. final judgments on gi applications and criteria. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83) |
| 28. overall implications of ruling on dual gi rights. (Para 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 29. authority of representative bodies for gi applications. (Para 89 , 90 , 91) |
| 30. final orders and directives regarding pisco gis. (Para 92 , 93) |
JUDGMENT
% 07.07.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J:
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Order dated 29th November, 2018 (“impugned order”) passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“IPAB”), by which the respondent no. 4‟s Geographical Indication (“GI”) application bearing no. 43 for „PISCO‟, was allowed.
Further, by the impugned order, order dated 3rd July, 2009 passed by respondent no. 2, i.e., Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks & GI, granting GI to respondent no. 4 as „Peruvian PISCO‟, was set aside.
2. The petitioner is also claiming similar rights over the name/GI PISCO for certain alcoholic beverages manufactured in Chile, in the same manner as claimed by respondent no. 4 for its alcoholic beverage manufactured in Peru. Therefore, the petitioner has filed a GI application for „Chilean PISCO‟ on 3rd June, 2020, which has been allotted application no. 689. It is the case of the petitioner that the GI of respondent no. 4 ought to be „Peruvian PISCO‟, while the petitioner ought to be granted GI for „Chilean PISCO‟, as both the petitioner and respondent no. 4 are claiming rights/GI PISCO for certain alcoholic beverages manufactured in Chile and Peru, respectively.
3. The respondent no. 4 had earlier filed an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks & GI for grant of GI „PISCO‟ on 29th September, 2005 in respect of alcohol beverages in Class 33. Per contra, the petitioner herein had filed a notice of opposition dated 17th January, 2007, towards the same. By way of order dated 3rd July, 2009, the Registrar of Trade Marks & GI held that the documents established that both the countries, i.e., Peru and Chile, were using „PISCO‟, and in some countries they have parallel agreements for use of PISCO. Thus, the application no. 43 for registration of GI PISCO, filed by respondent no. 4 was allowed with a caveat by registering the same as “Peruvian PISCO”, to avoid any deception or confusion amongst the consum
