Back
Issues Notice on Peru's Plea Over Exclusive 'PISCO' GI in India
The on Monday issued notice on a filed by the , challenging a judgment that refused to grant Peru an exclusive, standalone (GI) for “PISCO” in India. The High Court had held that the term “PISCO” has historically been associated with alcoholic beverages originating from both Peru and Chile, and granting exclusive protection to Peru would likely confuse consumers. A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli directed completion of pleadings and posted the matter for further hearing on .
The dispute, described by the as a “Tale of Two Countries,” concerns Peru’s attempt to register “PISCO” as a GI strictly for its national spirit. A single judge of the High Court had earlier ruled that the spirit could be registered only as “PERUVIAN PISCO,” not simply “PISCO.” The Division Bench upheld that decision, finding that the bars registration where the use of a GI is likely to . The bench observed that available material established longstanding international use of “Pisco” for spirits produced in both Peru and Chile.
Background: The GI Battle Over Pisco
Pisco is a type of brandy produced in winemaking regions of Peru and Chile. Both countries have long claimed the term as their own, and the dispute over its has been a recurring issue in international trade. Peru has secured GI protection for Pisco in around 82 countries, generally without any prefix or suffix. However, in India, the required the prefix “Peruvian” to avoid , given the historical use of the term by Chile.
The had earlier considered extensive historical material, including evidence concerning transnational GIs and the historical origins of Pisco. The IPAB had taken a view favourable to Peru, but the subsequently reversed that decision. The High Court’s Division Bench relied on the purpose of the GI Act to protect producers and prevent consumer deception, holding that Section 9 of the Act—which bars registration of a GI “the use of which would be likely to ”—trumped Peru’s claim to exclusivity.
Arguments Before the
, appearing for the , argued that “PISCO” itself is a and , and that requiring a country-specific prefix would dilute its distinctiveness. “This is an important issue for your Lordships' kind consideration... a GI, which itself is a , [cannot] be reduced to a generic term by saying that it is a Peruvian Pisco, or a Chilean Pisco,” he submitted.
Kaul drew an analogy with Champagne, stating that requiring the expression “Peruvian Pisco” would be akin to describing Champagne with an additional national prefix. “That would amount to saying that it's French champagne, or Spanish champagne, or English champagne,” he argued. He further submitted that Peru enjoys GI protection for Pisco in about 82 countries without any prefix, and only three countries—Chile, Costa Rica, and El Salvador—have adopted a different position for historical reasons.
, also appearing for Peru, challenged the High Court’s reliance on the concept of . He argued that Chile had initially advanced a case based on a shared history of Pisco but later sought to characterise the two products as different products having similar names. “Both these arguments cannot survive together,” he submitted. “You can't be a GI, and the homonymous GIs.”
Sai Deepak further argued that the Registrar’s decision to add the prefix “Peruvian” effectively reduced the GI to a generic term, which is not permissible under . He submitted that the High Court had failed to properly consider the statutory consequences under . He also referred to decisions recognising the principle of in relation to geographical indications such as Scotch whisky, and sought to distinguish the present case from disputes like Basmati, pointing out that Peru and Chile are separated by a considerable geographical distance.
’s Defence
, appearing for the , defended the High Court’s reasoning and relied on its factual findings concerning the historical use of “Pisco” in Chile. She referred the bench to paragraph 69 of the impugned judgment, which records: “There can be no doubt that if Pisco was being used since long in Chile for an alcoholic beverage, grant of GI Pisco exclusively to Peru is likely to result in confusion amongst consumers.”
Mathew pointed out that Peru itself did not dispute that Pisco had historically been used in Chile to denote an alcoholic beverage, although Peru alleged that Chile’s adoption of the term was dishonest. She submitted that the Registrar had statutory authority to make an appropriate adaptation to the GI where necessary to avoid , and since historical evidence established use of Pisco for alcoholic beverages from both countries, the addition of the geographical prefix was justified.
Legal Analysis: The Core Issues
The case raises fundamental questions about the scope of GI protection under Indian law. provides an on registration of a GI that is likely to deceive or confuse consumers. The ’s application of this provision to deny exclusive registration of “PISCO” in favour of Peru underscores the importance of consumer perception in GI law. Even where a country has strong historical and cultural links to a product name, the existence of by another country may prevent exclusive protection.
The concept of homonymous GIs—where the same name is used for products from different geographical origins—is recognized in international GI frameworks, particularly under the . However, the High Court’s judgment suggests that such homonymous protection must be subject to safeguards against . Peru’s argument that Chile’s later adoption of the term cannot confer a statutory right may face an uphill battle if historical evidence shows long-term use by Chile, irrespective of the original source.
The ’s eventual decision will have significant implications for international GI disputes in India. If the Court upholds the High Court’s ruling, it may signal a strict approach to GI registration, where exclusivity is rarely granted when multiple jurisdictions claim a product name. Conversely, if the Court rules in favour of Peru, it could strengthen the hand of original GI holders and raise the bar for claims by later adopters.
Impact on Legal Practice
For intellectual property practitioners, this case is a reminder of the critical role of historical evidence in GI disputes. Lawyers handling cross-border GI claims must be prepared to present comprehensive documentation of usage timelines, trade practices, and consumer recognition. The interplay between Section 9’s test and the concept of homonymous GIs will be a key area of argument in future cases.
The ’s notice also highlights the importance of the GI Act’s objectives—both to protect producers and to prevent consumer deception. The outcome of this case could shape how Indian courts balance these twin aims, particularly in disputes involving claims by foreign governments.
Conclusion
As the awaits the next hearing in October 2026, the legal battle over Pisco’s in India remains far from resolved. The ’s decision will not only affect Peru’s commercial interests but will also set a precedent for how India handles competing GI claims from multiple countries. For now, the High Court’s insistence on adding a country-specific prefix stands, and the will have the final word on whether “PISCO” can stand alone as a protected .
