Delhi High Court Denies Peru Exclusive Rights Over ‘PISCO’ GI, Cites Shared Legacy with Chile

Delhi High Court Denies Peru Exclusive Rights Over ‘PISCO’ GI, Cites Shared Legacy with Chile

Introduction

The Delhi High Court refused to grant exclusive geographical indication (GI) rights over the term “PISCO” to Peru, holding that the name is historically and commercially associated with alcoholic beverages produced in both Peru and Chile. A Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla upheld the requirement that the product be registered as “PERUVIAN PISCO” to avoid consumer confusion.

Factual Background

The dispute arose from Peru’s application seeking exclusive GI registration of the term “PISCO” under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Peru claimed that the term originates from the Quechua word “Pisku” and is intrinsically linked to a region and tradition of spirit production in Peru dating back to the 16th century.

The application was opposed by Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G., representing Chilean producers, who contended that “Pisco” has a shared historical and geographical association and has been produced in Chile for centuries. They argued that the term enjoys international recognition for both Peruvian and Chilean spirits.

Procedural Background

An Assistant Registrar of Geographical Indications initially allowed registration only as “PERUVIAN PISCO” to prevent confusion. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board later granted Peru rights over the standalone term “PISCO”. This decision was set aside by a Single Judge of the High Court, restoring the conditional registration. Peru then filed the present appeal before the Division Bench challenging this restriction.

Issues

1. Whether Peru is entitled to exclusive GI registration of the term “PISCO”.

2. Whether use of the term “PISCO” by Peru alone would cause consumer confusion under the GI Act.

3. Whether shared historical usage by Peru and Chile affects exclusivity under GI law.

Contentions of the Parties

Peru contended that “PISCO” is uniquely associated with its territory, culture, and historical production, and that Chile’s use of the name was dishonest and artificially constructed. It relied on historical records, linguistic origins, and geographical associations to assert exclusivity.

The Chilean association argued that the term has long been used internationally for spirits produced in both countries and that Chile’s rights are recognised in various international agreements. It submitted that granting exclusivity to Peru would disregard legitimate concurrent use and mislead consumers.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Court held that the primary function of a GI is to identify goods as originating from a specific territory and that such identification must not mislead consumers. It observed that evidence on record clearly established that both Peruvian and Chilean spirits are globally known as “Pisco”.

Relying on Section 9 of the GI Act, the Court emphasised that registration must be refused where it is likely to deceive or cause confusion. It found that granting Peru exclusive rights over the term would create confusion among consumers who associate “Pisco” with products from both countries.

The Court rejected allegations of dishonest adoption by Chile, noting the absence of credible evidence. It also recognised the relevance of international trade agreements as indicators of global recognition of Chilean Pisco. Further, the Court upheld the Registrar’s power to impose conditions on GI registration and found that requiring the prefix “PERUVIAN” was a reasonable and proportionate measure to distinguish the origin of goods and prevent confusion.

Characterising the matter as a “Tale of Two Countries,” the Court highlighted the shared heritage and concurrent use of the term, which precluded exclusive appropriation by either party.

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed Peru’s appeal and upheld the requirement that the GI be registered as “PERUVIAN PISCO” rather than granting exclusive rights over the standalone term “PISCO”.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and J. Sai Deepak with Advocates Prashant Gupta, Jithin M. George, R. Abhishek and B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu.