Is PISCO Chilean or Peruvian? Delhi High Court Settles the GI Dispute

A long-standing battle between South American countries, Peru and Chile, over the alcoholic beverage 'PISCO' and its Geographical Indication (GI) status, recently came to an end after the Delhi High Court ruled that both countries have valid claims to name their beverage PISCO.

In a detailed 47-page judgment, a bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna, while addressing the issue, held that both countries must use geographical identifiers such as Chilean PISCO and Peruvian PISCO to avoid any confusion among consumers.

The High Court was hearing a plea filed by Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. (Chile) challenging an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had granted exclusive GI registration for “PISCO” in India to Peru and set aside a 2009 order that had allowed the registration only as “Peruvian PISCO.”

Initially, Peru had applied for GI registration of “PISCO” in India. Chile opposed the application, arguing that both countries have historically produced the beverage. The Registrar had then directed that the GI be registered as “Peruvian PISCO” to prevent consumer confusion. Peru subsequently approached the IPAB, which in 2018 allowed the registration of “PISCO” without any prefix.

Aggrieved by this decision, Chile filed the present writ petition before the High Court, claiming that both countries have a shared history of producing the alcoholic beverage PISCO for centuries.

While examining the matter, Justice Mini Pushkarna at the outset stated, "Considering the long-standing use of PISCO by Chile over a prolonged period of time and recognition of the alcoholic drink PISCO from Chile by various countries across the world, it is established beyond doubt that the alcoholic beverage from Chile, is recognized and called as PISCO...Thus, there is no basis for the IPAB to not have recognised the existence of Chilean,"

The High Court held that PISCO is a homonymous geographical indication, which in simpler terms means they share the same name but have different origins and characteristics.

The Court said, "It cannot be ignored that PISCO from Chile is completely different and distinct from PISCO in Peru. Therefore, in the context of concurrent use of the homonymous GI, it would be misleading to the public as to the nature or quality of the two products, i.e., PISCO from Chile and PISCO from Peru, if the GI PISCO does not contain a further specific geographical identifier, in order to identify PISCO from Peru and Chile, respectively,"

The High Court drew a parallel with Indian GI practice, stating the example of Banglar Rasogolla and Odisha Rasagola, both registered despite sharing the same name.

Referring to Section 10 of the Geographical Indications of Goods Act, 1999, the Court held that the provision permits the registration of homonymous GIs, provided that consumers are not misled and producers are treated equitably. It emphasised that coexistence must be enabled through clear differentiation.

Rejecting Peru’s argument that Chile’s use of the term PISCO amounted to misappropriation, the HC said," Thus, the finding by the learned IPAB in the impugned order referring to the alcoholic beverage in question from Chile as ‘Chilean Liquor’ cannot be sustained. Similarly, the issues pertaining to priority, dishonest use, misappropriation and goodwill, as referred by the learned IPAB in its impugned order with regard to use of PISCO by Chile, again cannot be sustained.”

Finally, the Court set aside the IPAB order dated 29th November, 2018, and held that the GI granted to Peru must be modified

“Accordingly, in view of the detailed discussion hereinabove, the impugned order dated 29th November, 2018 passed by IPAB is set aside. The GI granted to respondent no. 4 is directed to be modified as ‘Peruvian PISCO’...” the Court held.

Case Title: ASOCIACION DE PRODUCTORES DE PISCO A.G. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Read Judgement Here: