$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15 January 2026 Pronounced on: 18 March 2026 + LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025 EMBASSY OF PERU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Jithin M. George, Mr. R. Abhishek and Mr. B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Rigved Prasad and Ms.

Vanshika Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA

JUDGMENT

% 18.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. If judgments could be given subtitles, we could subtitle this, with due apologies to Dickens, “A Tale of Two Countries”.

A. The lis

2. The South American nation of Peru, through its Embassy in New Delhi, filed an application under Section 11(1), 11. Application for registration. of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, “the GI Act” hereinafter, for registration of the Geographical Indication, “GI” hereinafter PISCO, in relation to an alcoholic beverage manufactured in Peru. The Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G., “ADP” hereinafter opposed the application. By order dated 3 July 2009, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the registration of the GI “PERUVIAN PISCO” in favour of Peru.

3. The Embassy of Peru, “Peru”, hereinafter, for ease of reference appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board⁶, praying that the order dated 3 July 2009 of the Assistant Registrar be quashed, Peru’s application for registration of the GI PISCO (without any “Peruvian” prefix) be allowed and the Opposition filed by ADP to the application be dismissed.

4. The IPAB, by order dated 29 November 2018, allowed Peru’s appeal, dismissed ADP’s Opposition before the Assistant Registrar, and held Peru entitled to registration of the GI PISCO in respect of the alcoholic beverage manufactured by it.

(1) Any association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law for the time being in force representing the interest of the producers of the concerned goods, who are desirous of registering a geographical indication in relation to such goods shall apply in writing to the Registrar in such form and in such manner and accompanied by such fees as may be prescribed for the registration of the geographical indication.

5. ADP challenged the decision of the IPAB before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by way of WP (C) 3549/2020, which was later renumbered WP (C)-IPD 17/2021. Peru was impleaded as Respondent 4 therein.

6. In the interregnum, ADP filed GI Application No. 689 on 3 June 2020, in which it was claimed that the GI “CHILEAN PISCO” ought to be assigned to ADP and “PERUVIAN PISCO” to Peru.

7. While issuing notice in the writ petition, this Court, vide order dated 16 June 2020, stayed further proceedings in GI Application No.

689 filed by Chile.

8. By judgment dated 7 July 2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed ADP’s writ petition, set aside the order of the IPAB and directed modification of the GI PISCO, granted to Peru, to “PERUVIAN PISCO”. The stay imposed by order dated 16 June 2020 has also been vacated and the GI application filed by ADP has been directed to be further processed.

9. Aggrieved thereby, Peru has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal.

10. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, and Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, learned Counsel for ADP, at length. Learned Counsel have also filed written submissions.

B. The Statute, and some preliminary comments

11. Judicial pronouncements in our country on the GI Act are few, and it would be appropriate, therefore, to commence with a tour through the relevant provisions.

12. “Geographical indication” is defined in Section 2(1)(e)⁷. A GI is an “indication” which, in turn, is defined