Geographical Indications (GIs) represent one of the most culturally significant and economically valuable forms of intellectual property. They function as markers of origin, linking goods to specific regions where unique climatic conditions, traditional knowledge, and community practices give these products their distinctive qualities and reputation. GIs such as Darjeeling Tea, Madhubani paintings, Münchener Bier, or Kalamata Olive Oil, assure consumers of authenticity while empowering local producers with collective rights over names that embody generations of craftsmanship.
Unlike trademarks, which identify the origin of a business, GIs are community rights, rooted in regional heritage rather than individual ownership. Their protection bolsters rural development, preserves cultural traditions, prevents consumer deception, and ensures fair competition. Globally, GI protection has strengthened through international agreements such as the TRIPS Agreement, which obligates WTO member states to safeguard GIs and prevent misleading or unfair commercial practices. In India, this framework is implemented through the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which sets out the criteria, registration process, and limitations governing GI protection.
Against this broader backdrop of cultural identity, economic value, and international cooperation, legal disputes over GIs, particularly when multiple countries claim historical association with the same product, have become increasingly common. Such conflicts examine the scope of domestic GI laws, the interpretation of homonymous GIs, and the interaction between national statutes and international treaty obligations.
It is within this context that the Delhi High Court’s decision in the dispute over the term “PISCO”, claimed by both Chile and Peru, holds particular significance. This case not only clarifies the Indian legal position on homonymous GIs but also illustrates how Indian courts balance competing historical narratives, trade practices, and statutory requirements.
In the writ petition filed by Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G., dated July 7, 2025, the Delhi High Court adjudicated on a long-standing geographical indication (GI) dispute between Chile and Peru concerning the term “PISCO,” a grape-based alcoholic beverage. The case of Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. vs Union of India & Ors. also brings to the forefront complex legal questions involving international intellectual property rights, Indian GI law, and principles derived from multilateral treaties, such as the TRIPS Agreement.
Legal Background of the Case
Section 2(1)(e) of the GI Act defines a “geographical indication” as an indication identifying goods as originating or manufactured in a specific territory, region, or locality, where the quality, reputation, or other characteristics are essentially attributable to their geographical origin. This definition includes agricultural, natural, or manufactured goods. The Act also recognises names that do not directly indicate a geographic location but have acquired recognition through usage.
Prohibition of Registration in Certain Cases (Section 9)
Section 9 of the GI Act outlines prohibitions on the registration of GIs that are likely to deceive, cause confusion, are contrary to law, contain scandalous or obscene matters, are likely to hurt the religious susceptibilities of any class or section, or are misleading in nature. Unlike trademarks, GIs do not rely on priority of use, ownership, or intent; rather, they focus on whether the product in question has a legitimate and recognised link to a particular region.
Homonymous Geographical Indications (Section 10)
Section 10 of the GI Act deals with the registration of homonymous GIs, which are identical or similarly named geographical indications originating from different geographical locations and denoting different products or varieties. The section states that a homonymous GI may be registered if practical conditions ensure that consumers are not confused or misled, and equitable treatment of producers is preserved. The Indian GI law, consistent with TRIPS Article 23.3, allows for such coexistence, provided mechanisms are in place to differentiate between the two.
Application for Registration (Section 11)
Section 11 of the GI Act outlines the eligibility criteria for applying for a GI in India. Only associations of persons, producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law, representing the interests of producers of goods, can apply for GI registration.
Factual Matrix of the Case
The Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G., a Chilean producers’ association, challenged an order passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018, which had granted exclusive GI protection to the Peruvian entity for the term “PISCO,” without the geographical qualifier “Peruvian”. This was in contrast to an earlier order of the Registrar of Trade Marks and GI in 2009, which had approved the registration of the GI as “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid consumer confusion and deception.
The petitioner argued that Chile has an equally long-standing and legitimate claim over the use of the term “PISCO” for its own distinct variety of grape spirit, which has been produced in specific regions of northern Chile for over two centuries. They cited documentary evidence tracing back to 1733, recognition of Chilean PISCO in over 18 international Free Trade Agreements, and GI protection granted by other countries such as Costa Rica. It was contended that both Chile and Peru produce different types of PISCO, each with unique characteristics, and therefore, the term should be treated as a homonymous GI under Indian law.
Central to the petitioner’s case was the assertion that the Peruvian entity’s claim for exclusive use of the term “PISCO” was unsustainable under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The Chilean producers emphasised that the GI Act, particularly Section 10, permits the registration of homonymous GIs, i.e., identical names for products from different geographical origins, provided that measures are in place to prevent consumer confusion. They also pointed out that the original GI application was filed by the Embassy of Peru, which, being a sovereign entity, lacked the locus standi under Section 11 of the GI Act, which reserves such applications for producers or associations of producers.
Respondent No. 4, representing the Peruvian side, countered that “PISCO” has historical and cultural roots solely in Peru, including the existence of a port town by the same name. They accused Chile of attempting to illegitimately benefit from the global reputation of the Peruvian beverage, citing incidents from the post-war period of the late 1800s when Chile purportedly renamed a town “Pisco Elqui” to bolster its claim. They further asserted that under GI laws, a GI cannot have prefixed qualifiers like “Chilean” or “Peruvian,” as such additions undermine the essential geographical identity inherent in the GI.
Decision of the Court
After a detailed examination of submissions and a careful review of global treaties, trade records, domestic law, and international precedents, the Court noted that the term “PISCO” has been used consistently and widely by both Chile and Peru. The Court recognised that Chilean PISCO had been acknowledged through Free Trade Agreements, international GI registrations, and centuries of production, and that it had a legitimate claim to the use of the term. It also held that the petitioner’s product clearly met the definition of a GI under Indian law, and that it had been misleading for the IPAB to refer to Chilean PISCO merely as “Chilean liquor.”
Importantly, the Court emphasised that the GI Act is distinct from trademark law. Concepts such as prior use, misappropriation, or dishonesty in adoption, which are central to trademark disputes, have no direct application in the context of GIs. Instead, the core consideration under the GI regime is whether the goods in question are genuinely and traditionally associated with a specific geographical territory. The Court clarified that GI rights are community rights and cannot be transferred or licensed like trademarks.
Furthermore, the Court rejected the reasoning adopted by the IPAB that Chile’s use of “PISCO” was dishonest or historically inaccurate. It held that the focus should be on whether the name “PISCO” is used and recognised in relation to a product from a particular region. In this context, it concluded that both Chilean and Peruvian PISCOs are established in the global marketplace and possess their own historical and cultural legitimacy.
Citing the example of co-existing GI registrations for “Banglar Rasogolla” and “Odisha Rasagola” in India, the Court affirmed that homonymous GIs can be registered and protected under Indian law, so long as consumer confusion is avoided. The judgment underlined that consumer protection and equitable treatment of producers are the primary objectives of the GI Act, and not the resolution of political or historical disputes between nations.
In conclusion, while the Court did not invalidate the registration of “PISCO” in favour of the Peruvian entity, it explicitly recognised the Chilean claim as a legitimate homonymous GI. The Court directed that the Registrar consider the GI application for “Chilean PISCO” (Application No. 689) on its own merits, free from the limitations imposed by the IPAB’s earlier ruling. It also reiterated that both products can co-exist under Indian law, provided steps are taken to clearly differentiate them in the interest of consumer clarity and fair trade.
Impact of the Decision
This decision is a significant development in the realm of international GI laws and has the potential to guide future decisions involving cross-border claims over cultural and regional products. The judgment clarifies the scope and applicability of key provisions of the GI Act, emphasises the difference between GI and trademark regimes, and upholds international standards such as those under TRIPS.
By validating Chile’s claim to PISCO as a homonymous GI and criticising the erroneous reliance on trademark principles by the IPAB, the court reiterated the core purpose of GI law, which is to protect genuine regional products without prejudice to historical or political narratives. The decision, therefore, sets an important precedent for future global GI disputes and emphasises the need for balanced recognition of competing claims based on actual trade practices, regional identity and consumer protection.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Shivi Gupta
First Published by: Mondaq here