Delhi High Court decides battle between Chile and Peru over name of alcoholic beverage PISCO

The Delhi High Court on July 7 addressed the long-standing dispute over Geographical Indication (GI) rights for the alcoholic beverage PISCO, ruling that both Peru and Chile have legitimate claims to the name but must use geographic identifiers to prevent consumer confusion. (Asociación de Productores de Pisco (Chile) Vs Union of India).Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the Intellectual Property Appellate Board's (IPAB) November 2018 order that had granted Peru exclusive rights to 'PISCO' without any prefix.The High Court instead directed that Peru's registration be modified to 'Peruvian PISCO.'.The Court determined that the case involved homonymous geographical indications, i.e. products with identical names from different geographical origins but with distinct characteristics."The alcoholic beverage originating from both Peru and Chile are recognized and identified as PISCO. However, it cannot be ignored that PISCO from Chile is completely different and distinct from PISCO in Peru," Justice Pushkarna observed.The judgment held that Chilean and Peruvian PISCO are fundamentally different beverages with varying production methods, grape varieties and aging processes..The Embassy of Peru applied in 2005 for GI protection in India for “PISCO”. Chilean producers opposed the application, arguing that the name has long been used for grape-based spirits made in specific regions of Chile. In 2009, the GI Registrar accepted Peru’s claim but directed that the name be registered as “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid confusion.That direction was overturned by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018, which granted exclusive rights over the name “PISCO” to Peru. The Chilean association challenged this order before the High Court by filing a writ petition. .The High Court noted extensive international recognition of Chilean PISCO including geographical indication rights granted by Costa Rica and acknowledgment in eighteen free trade agreements between Chile and other countries worldwide."The first document that proves the production of PISCO in Chile was found in 1733, in a public inventory of Latorre Ranch located in the region of Coquimbo," the Chilean association argued, claiming historical precedence.Evidence showed that even Peru's applications for PISCO registration in European countries faced partial refusals, specifically to protect existing Chilean rights under bilateral trade agreements..The judgment analysed India's Geographical Indications Act, 1999 and the country's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, particularly provisions addressing homonymous geographical indications."India is a signatory of the TRIPS agreement, which necessitates member nations to abide by basic standards in relation to GIs," the Court noted.It cited successful precedents of homonymous GI registrations in India such as 'Banglar Rasogolla' and 'Odisha Rasagola', where similar products from different regions coexisted with appropriate geographical identifiers..Central to the court's reasoning was preventing consumer deception and confusion. The judgment emphasized that without geographic prefixes, consumers would be unable to distinguish between products with different characteristics and origins."Grant of GI PISCO to respondent no. 4 without a geographical identifier as originating from Peru, would be misleading to the general public apropos to the PISCO originating from Chile," the Court ruled..It rejected arguments about historical dishonesty or misappropriation, focusing instead on current commercial reality and consumer recognition."The GI law does not concern itself with the political history of the country, but with the cultural/industry practice of the name given to a product of that country," Justice Pushkarna stated..The Court held that:Chilean PISCO has a long and well-documented history, international recognition, and legal protection in multiple countries;The GI Act, 1999 permits registration of homonymous GIs under Section 10 provided they are distinguishable to avoid misleading consumers;The IPAB erred in applying trademark law principles such as dishonest adoption and prior use, which are irrelevant under GI law.“Geographical Indication law is concerned with whether a product is identified with a specific region—not who first used the name,” the Court clarified.The Court further noted that international trade agreements and recognition, including in Costa Rica and the European Union acknowledge Chile’s use of the term PISCO, alongside Peru..The Chilean association had challenged the Embassy of Peru’s authority to file a GI application. However, the Court rejected this argument, holding that the Embassy was validly acting on behalf of the Peruvian state under its domestic law..The Court issued the following directions to GI Registrar.The GI registered to Peru is to be modified to 'Peruvian PISCO';The Registrar is directed to process Chile’s GI application for “Chilean PISCO” in accordance with law..The petitioners were represented by Advocates Shwetasree Majumder, Aditya Verma, Rohan Krishna Seth, Rigved Prasad and Ritwik Marwaha from Fidus Law Chambers. .Registrar of GIs was represented by advocate Vijay Joshi..Embassy of Peru was represented by Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sindhwani with advocates Prashant Gupta, Jithin George and Gaurav Sindhwani..[Read Judgment]