Delhi High Court denies interim relief to Peru in the ongoing PISCO GI dispute with Chile. The court has scheduled the final hearing for October 15, 2025, on this international GI case.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Thursday declined to grant interim relief to the Embassy of Peru in its ongoing legal battle over the Geographical Indication (GI) registration of “PISCO” liquor, keeping the spotlight on a long-running international dispute between Peru and Chile.
The case Embassy of Peru Vs. Union of India revolves around the right to use the name “PISCO”, a grape-based spirit with centuries of cultural and historical significance. The Court refused to stay the processing of Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO”, pending the adjudication of Peru’s appeal against a July 7, 2025 judgment.
A Division Bench comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla scheduled the matter for final hearing on October 15, 2025, but clarified that no interim relief would be granted in the meantime. “We are not convinced that irreparable loss [will be caused]. It will be appropriate if the appeal itself is heard,” the Court remarked.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Why ‘First Use’ Doesn’t Matter in GI Law | Analysis
Background of the PISCO Dispute
The dispute has a long legal history in India:
- 2005: Peru applied for GI protection for “PISCO” in India.
- Opposition: Chilean producers claimed the term had long been used for spirits made in specific regions of Chile.
- 2009: The GI Registrar accepted Peru’s claim but directed the registration as “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid confusion.
- 2018: The Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) granted Peru exclusive rights to the bare term “PISCO”, overturning the 2009 direction.
- July 7, 2025: Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the IPAB ruling, holding that the dispute concerns homonymous GIs, identical names from different geographical origins but with distinct characteristics. The Court directed that Peru’s registration be modified to “Peruvian PISCO” and allowed Chile’s application to be processed.
This single-judge ruling is now being challenged before the Division Bench.
Arguments from Peru and Chile
Peru, represented by Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, argued for interim protection, citing the global recognition of PISCO as part of Peru’s cultural heritage. Kaul emphasized:
- 82 countries recognize PISCO as Peru’s GI.
- Absence of interim protection causes irreparable damage to Peru’s global identity.
- “This is 300 years of our heritage,” Kaul noted, highlighting historical records showing Chile had not been able to manufacture PISCO.
On the other hand, Chile, represented by Advocate Shwetasree Majumder, contested the maintainability of the plea, stating that an appeal against an order on a writ petition under Article 226 would lie before the Supreme Court, not the Division Bench. Chile opposed the interim relief, arguing that the case should proceed through regular legal channels.
Delhi High Court’s Observation
The Division Bench concluded that interim relief was not warranted, observing that Peru’s concerns could be addressed during the final hearing. While the matter remains unresolved, the ruling reiterates the principle that GI disputes involving multiple countries require careful adjudication without prematurely granting exclusive rights that could affect trade and heritage claims.
The case now awaits its final hearing on October 15, 2025, which could have far-reaching implications for international GI rights in India.
7th July Judgment of Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court clarified that “first use” or “prior use” is irrelevant under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. GI rights are community-based, not private monopolies like trademarks.
The Court’s observations:
- GI vs Trademark: Unlike trademarks, GI rights cannot be assigned, transferred, or based on prior use, goodwill, or misappropriation.
- Cultural & Geographical Identity: The GI Act focuses on whether goods are identified with a specific region or origin, not historical claims or political factors.
- Homonymous GIs: Peru and Chile’s PISCO are distinct products; both can coexist if consumer confusion is avoided.
Judgment (07 July 2025):
- The Court set aside the IPAB’s 2018 order granting Peru exclusive rights to “PISCO” without a geographical qualifier.
- Both Chile and Peru have recognized use of “PISCO,” so neither can claim exclusive rights.
- Authorities were directed to process Chile’s GI application independently, acknowledging the concept of homonymous GIs under Section 10 of the GI Act.
Case Title: Asociacion de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
Read 7th July Judgment: