The Delhi High Court ruled that ‘first use’ is irrelevant in Geographical Indications law, recognizing both Chilean and Peruvian rights over the GI “PISCO”, and clarified that GI protection depends on regional identity, not trademark-like priority.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court has clarified a fundamental principle of Geographical Indications (GI) law: “First use” is not the determining factor in granting GI protection.
This clarification came in the context of a long-standing dispute between Chile and Peru over the right to the GI tag “PISCO”, a popular grape-based alcoholic beverage.
Background
The case involves a dispute over the Geographical Indication (GI) tag for the alcoholic beverage “PISCO” between Chile and Peru. The petitioner, Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G. (a Chilean producers’ body), challenged a 2018 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which granted GI registration for “PISCO” to the Peruvian respondent without any prefix.
Earlier, in 2009, the Assistant Registrar had allowed the GI with the condition that it be registered as “Peruvian PISCO”, to avoid confusion, acknowledging that both Chile and Peru use the term. However, the IPAB reversed this and granted the GI solely as “PISCO”.
The Chilean petitioner, claiming historical and continuous use of the term for over a century, filed its own GI application for “Chilean PISCO” in 2020. The Delhi High Court issued interim orders ensuring no final decision would be made on the Chilean application until the writ petition was resolved.
The petitioner relies on historical records, Free Trade Agreements, and international recognition to assert that both countries should be allowed to use the GI, ideally with country-specific qualifiers to prevent consumer confusion.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court, in Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors., explicitly held that the concept of “first use” or “prior use” is not a relevant factor under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
“Priority plays no role in ownership under the GI Act, which is concerned with the identification of particular goods as originating or manufactured in a specific country, territory, region or locality, with given quality, reputation or other characteristics, as essentially attributable to its geographical origin. Thus, the only relevant consideration is whether the goods in question are actually, and in fact, identified by that geographical origin in the relevant markets, trade channels, consumers, etc.”
The Court clarified that GI rights are not private monopolies like trademarks, and therefore, principles such as prior use, dishonest adoption, or goodwill, central to trademark law, have no bearing in GI adjudication.
“The considerations for registration of and right to use a GI under the GI Act are completely distinct from considerations under the Trade Marks Act. The considerations regarding dishonest adoption, misappropriation, and prior user are concepts that are relevant for the registration of a trademark. However, for GI, it is to be seen and considered whether goods are identified as originating or manufactured in a particular territory, country, region, or locality.”
The Court reinforced this distinction by comparing both laws,
“While a trademark can be assigned, transferred, or licensed, a GI cannot be… GI belongs to the community/region.”
And again, underlining the irrelevance of priority,
“The GI Act 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.”
Judgment
In its judgment dated 07 July 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, set aside the order dated 29 November 2018 passed by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which had granted exclusive Geographical Indication (GI) rights over the term “PISCO” to the respondent from Peru, without any geographical qualifier.
The Court held that both Chile and Peru have established and recognized usage of the term “PISCO” for their respective alcoholic beverages, and therefore, neither country can claim exclusive rights over the term to the exclusion of the other.
Emphasizing the distinction between GI law and trademark law, the Court categorically stated that
“Priority plays no role in ownership under the GI Act, which is concerned with identification of particular goods as originating or manufactured in a specific country, territory, region or locality”
It also rejected IPAB’s findings that Chile’s use of the term was dishonest, stating that such conclusions were “erroneous and not relevant for adjudication of the said issue”, as the GI law is not concerned with historical conflicts or allegations of misappropriation.
The Court further clarified that
“The considerations for registration of and right to use a GI under the GI Act are completely distinct from considerations under the Trade Marks Act”
and that GI rights are community rights based on cultural and geographical identity, not individual ownership or prior usage.
Observing that Chilean and Peruvian PISCO are distinct products, the Court concluded that this was a classic case of “homonymous GIs”, which are recognized under Section 10 of the GI Act, provided consumer confusion can be avoided.
The Court noted that “both the countries, i.e., Chile and Peru, are using the word PISCO for their alcoholic beverages”, and that “PISCO is not attributable to any particular city in Peru, but rather a region wherein PISCO is produced”.
Accordingly, it ruled that the GI granted to Peru cannot bar Chile from seeking recognition of “Chilean PISCO” and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner’s application independently of the IPAB’s earlier decision.
Case Title: Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
READ JUDGMENT HERE
