top of page

A Spirited Debate: Pisco, India, and the Battle for a Name

  • Writer: Soumya Juneja
    Soumya Juneja
  • Aug 5
  • 4 min read

INTRODUCTION


Delhi High Court issued its judgment in Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors[1]., addressing a long-standing conflict over Geographical Indication rights for "PISCO" between Chile and Peru in the Indian market. The Chilean producers’ association appealed the Order passed by the IPAB, granting exclusive rights to the GI PISCO for Peru, without any geographic qualifier. During this appeal, the Court addressed these concerns and importance of geographic qualifiers and significance of homonymous GIs.

 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND


In 2005, the Embassy of Peru in India (Respondent No. 4) sought to register ‘PISCO’ as a GI in India for alcoholic beverages produced in Peru. However, the Registrar, acknowledging Chile’s longstanding history of PISCO production, approved the registration for ‘Peruvian PISCO’ rather than just ‘PISCO’[2]. This decision was published in the GI Journal in 2006, prompting the Association of Producers of "Chilean PISCO" (the petitioners) to file a notice of opposition in 2007 claiming shared rights over the GI PISCO.


The Intellectual Appellate Board (IPAB) overturned the previously given Order passed by the Assistant Registrar, granting Peru the sole Geographical Indications (GI) rights to ‘PISCO’. IPAB also dismissed Chilean usage on the basis of dishonest use and misappropriation. As a result of this, Respondent 4 had been granted the GI PISCO.[3]

Thus, this judgment is a consequence of an appeal filed by Chilean association challenging the order given by IPAB before the High Court by filing a writ petition.


ISSUES:[4]


The issues to be addressed before the Court were as follows:


1) Whether the ‘Chilean Liquor’ as identified in the IPAB order is known/identified as PISCO?

2)  Whether PISCO is a homonymous GI?


LEGAL ANALYSIS AND REASONING:


The IPAB ignored the core issue of whether Chilean alcoholic beverages are identified as ‘PISCO’, or not. Based on that conclusion, Section 9 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act) will be factored in. The board plainly and purely discussed qualitative differences between Peruvian and Chilean beverages that were irrelevant to the GI registration issue. Moreover, the IPAB referred to Chilean PISCO as “Chilean Liquor” without acknowledging its internationally recognised name, “PISCO”.


Both the countries have a shared historical background in the manufacturing of PISCO. Chile has signed several Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with countries like Canada, USA, Australia, China, Japan, etc, where its alcoholic beverage is acknowledged as “PISCO”, Although such recognition under FTAs in not equivalent to legal IP protection, the European Union Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008, governs the protection of GIs for spirit drinks and provides safeguards for Chile’s right to use the term ‘PISCO’ for its domestically produced goods.[5] The Court concluded that the Chilean product is referred to as ‘PISCO’ based on not only the several FTAs but also various other pieces of evidence provided by Chile, proving global recognition. Thus, taking this into account, the Court argued that since beverages from both the countries are referred to as PISCO, then according to Section 9(a) and 9(g) of the (GI Act), it risks consumer deception and confusion. Section 9(a) prohibits the registration of those GI that would most likely confuse or deceive the consumers (especially on the basis of its origin, nature or quality) and 9(g) analyses the false representation of the locality or the region to the people to mislead them about the origination of the said goods. 

Furthermore, if the GI qualifier is not included, then it would be detrimental to the legal and legitimate commercial interests of producers of PISCO in Chile.


The concept of ‘homonymous GIs’ was also discussed in this case and Section 10 of the GI Act discusses registration of the same. These kinds of GIs that are pronounced or spelled alike but are differentiated on the basis of disparity in regions or countries. It is not the same as transnational GI as it shares a region and name. The dispute in this case of transnational GIs is over joint ownership and not over exclusive use of a common name. To fulfil the registration of homonymous GIs, the registrar must be satisfied with the following conditions:  i) two GIs can be practically differentiated, ii) producers of both GIs receive fair treatment and iii) consumers are not likely to be confused between the two GIs. Thus, the court held that Peruvian and Chilean PISCO are distinct beverages with distinct qualitative characteristics and geographies, and hence, they qualify for coexistent GI status with geographic qualifiers to avoid consumer deception. For instance, Banglar Rasogolla and Odisha Rasogolla. This is consistent with Articles 22.3 and 22.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, which permits the use of qualifiers for homonymous GIs. This principle could apply to the current case where the alcoholic beverage is common to both Chile and Peru. Adding prefixes like “Peruvian” and “Chilean” would align with Section 10 of GI Act and Article 22.3 and 22.4 of TRIPS.

 

DECISION


The Delhi High Court set aside the IPAB’s 2018 order that granted “PISCO” exclusively to Peru without any qualifiers.[6] It was decided by the Court that GI PISCO can be used by the nations, but they must include geographic identifiers i.e., ‘Peruvian PISCO’ and ‘Chilean PISCO’, to prevent confusion and ensure clarity. The Court also clarified that concepts of ‘prior use and adoption’ and ‘misappropriation’ are not taken into consideration in the GI law and are concepts of Trademark. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed that GI law emphasizes geographical origin and collective identity, and not historical and political priority. Recognizing both Chile and Peru as rightful users of the name PISCO, provided they included clear geographical identifiers, safeguards consumer interests and aligns with international TRIPS norms as well.

 

CONCLUSION


This case sets a precedent for how Indian courts handle international IP and GI disputes. More importantly, it highlights the role of GIs in global branding, trade negotiations and cultural identity. Ultimately, in the case of Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors. sets a precedent not only for GI disputes over spirits like pisco but also for future conflicts involving shared names across regions—balancing commercial rights, cultural heritage, and consumer protection within India’s statutory and international legal framework.

 

 

References:


Comments

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
bottom of page