The question whether PISCO is a homonym or a transborder GI between Peru and Chile has been embroiled, among others, in a long-running legal dispute in India going back to 2005.
On July 7, 2025, the High Court of Delhi through a single judge bench held that PISCO is a homonymous geographical indication shared between the two countries, and both could co-exist in India – as ‘Peruvian Pisco’ and ‘Chilean Pisco’ – to prevent any public confusion. To recall the factual journey of this long-lasting dispuite, please read here the article published in July 2025.
Aggrieved by the judgment passed by the single judge bench of the High Court, Peru filed an intra-court appeal before a two-judge appellate bench (the Division Bench) within the High Court itself. On March 18, 2026, the Division Bench dismissed Peru’s appeal.
Assailing the single judge’s judgment before the Division Bench, Peru essentially raised inter-alia the following grounds of appeal:
- The single judge’s finding that the dispute is not a case of ‘transnational GIs’, but that of homonymous GIs was factually and legally flawed since a claim of homonymous GI under the GI Act in India requires satisfaction of two cumulative conditions (i) a prior registered GI and (2) an application for registration of a homonymous GI.
Since Chile’s claim did not satisfy the two conditions, it was disentitled from raising the homonymous GI claim in respect of Chilean Pisco.
Further, Chile pleaded for a homogenous GI status for Chilean PISCO only at a later stage of the pleadings.
- Chile could claim no rights in the GI PISCO as the very adoption of the name “Pisco” by Chile was dishonest. In support of this claim, Peru relied upon travelogues, memoirs and other documents including the war accounts of Chilean soldiers, documents from the Peruvian embassy to the US, the Chilean action of renaming the town ‘La Union’ as “Pisco Elqui” in 1936 etc.
- The FTAs between Chilean and various countries are merely a consequence of the larger economic policies of States based on political negotiations and compromises. These cannot be used to interpret statutory rights.
In reply, Chile raised the following submissions:
- There was no dispute that PISCO refers to an alcoholic beverage manufactured and distilled in Peru as well as Chile, though the two beverages are different and distinct from each other. Both the beverages have been made and sold in both the countries for a long time.
- Under the GI Act, registration of a GI, the use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, is prohibited as an absolute ground, agnostic of all other considerations. Given the long simultaneous use of the PISCO GI for alcoholic beverages made in Peru and Chile, grant of absolute rights to Peru would result in confusion among consumers.
- FTAs are international agreements between countries and cannot be dismissed.
Dismissing the appeal filed by Peru, the Division Bench, calling the judgment in a lighter vein with due apologies to Dickens, “A Tale of Two Countries”, held as follows:
- The allegation of misappropriation or dishonesty on the part of Chile in adopting the name “Pisco” is completely bereft of credible supportive evidence.
- The material on which the single judge relied, establishes that “Pisco” as an alcoholic beverage was being manufactured in Chile for a century. Given the long world-wide use of “Pisco” by Chile, the use by Peru of “Pisco” as a stand-alone appellation would manifestly result in confusion among the consuming public.
- FTAs are solemn commercial agreements between nations. They manifest international recognition of the fact the alcoholic beverage manufactured by Chile is known, not only within, but also outside Chile, as “Pisco”.
- A homonymous indication under the Act can be registered only on an application seeking registration and only where there is an existing registered GI. As these prerequisites did not exist in the present case at the relevant time, the single judge’s finding to allow registration of the GI PISCO as a homogenous GI was erroneous.
For the aforesaid reasons, the Division Bench held that Peru cannot be allowed registration of the GI PISCO as a standalone GI.
Peru has a further right to appeal the DB’s judgment by special leave to the Supreme Court of India.
NB: My two bits on the outcome: Peru and Chile are both left with a slightly truncated right to use the GI ‘Pisco’ with a qualifier, ‘Peruvian’ in the case of Peru and ‘Chilean’ in the case of Chile. In the absence of such qualifier, registration of ‘Pisco’ as a stand-alone GI for either country would be fraught with likelihood of confusion and deception, that is, the patrons familiar with both the beverages or only one may likely be confused or deceived as to origin. It was not in dispute in the record of the proceedings that the rights obtained by either country through registrations in various countries or FTAs have all been subject to the rights of the other country. Though the court’s directions for use of the geographical qualifier ‘Peruvian’ as a prefix to Pisco from Peru may be one way of addressing the question of confusion and deception, these carry an inherent risk of dilution of the GI PISCO in the longer run. If Peru had offered certain additional labelling as part of the GI itself such as “PISCO-A Produce of Peru”, would the outcome have been more equitable? Would such additional labelling have been considered sufficient by the court to distinguish one product from the other without the inherent risk of dilution.
