A Case of Homonymous Geographical Indications
Case name: Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union Of India & Ors. Citation: 2025:DHC:5339
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
SCC Online Citation: 2025 SCC Online Del 4774
Case Title on Appeal: Embassy of Peru v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number: LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025
Abstract
The piece discusses Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v. Union of India and Ors, a key GI clash between Chile and Peru over “PISCO.” It looks at homonymous geographical indications and the differences between trademark and GI law using the Geographical Indications Act, 1999 and the TRIPS Agreement. The judgment pushes for resolving competing geographical claims via coexistence rather than exclusivity.
Introduction
Say, for the sake of argument, that there was a wine called Hibat, made in Kashmir before Partition. When India and Pakistan were divided, producers on both sides continued to make it, and consumers on both sides regarded both versions as authentic Hibat. If one country subsequently obtained an exclusive GI over the name, producers in the other country would be unfairly excluded, despite their historical link to the product. This hypothetical is very close to the dispute in Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts
The dispute concerned the geographical indication “PISCO”, an alcoholic beverage made from grapes and produced in both Peru and Chile. In 2005, the Peruvian Embassy filed an application for registration of “PISCO” as a GI in India. The Registrar registered “Peruvian PISCO” to differentiate it from the Chilean producers. However, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018 deleted the geographical qualifier and allowed registration of the term “PISCO” per se. This decision was challenged by the Chilean producers before the Delhi High Court who also sought registration of “Chilean PISCO” as a separate GI. In consequence, the Court had to determine whether the exclusive right over the term could be granted to Peru.
Core questions
1. Whether the term PISCO can be granted exclusively as a GI to Peru or whether Chile does have coexisting rights over it.
2. Whether Chilean and Peruvian PISCOs are homonymous GI’s.
3. Whether IPAB while giving its decision ignored the provisions of the geographical indications of goods (registration and protection),1999, and international principles under the TRIPS agreement
Arguments
Chile argued that GI law is distinct from trademark law and is based on the geographical connection between a product and its place of origin. Chile had been producing PISCO for hundreds of years, was internationally recognized and therefore entitled to GI protection.
Peru argued that PISCO was uniquely Peruvian, and that the name was taken from a Peruvian city, port and valley. It submitted that Chile’s claim was invalid and that the Registrar had wrongly inserted the qualifier “Peruvian” in the registration.
Judgment/court reasoning
The Court held that trademark doctrines like prior use and misappropriation are not to be imported into GI law. Unlike trademarks, GIs protect the association of a product with its geographical origin. The Court found that PISCO is associated with Peru and Chile by consumers and international markets. It therefore treated the dispute as one of homonymous geographical indications, a concept known under the TRIPS Agreement. The Court directed that the GI register reflect “Peruvian PISCO” to balance the interests of both producer groups and avoid consumer confusion, and allowed consideration of Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO.” The Court also relied on the existence of ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ and ‘Odisha Rasagola’ to show that Indian law allows for the protection of homonymous GIs.
Impact of judgement
The judgment is a major development in Indian GI jurisprudence. The Court therefore acknowledged the potential for coexistence of “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO,” and confirmed that the protection of homonymous GIs can be an alternative to exclusivity in cases of conflicting geographical claims. The ruling gives guidance for future conflicts on products that are linked to more than one region and brings Indian law in line with the principles recognised under the TRIPS Agreement.
Critical assessment
The court clarified that trademarks and GIs are two different things. They correctly held that prior use and misappropriation are the core concepts of trademark law and cannot be automatically imported to GI. This approach stays consistent with what is given in the Geographical Indications Act 1999 which protects the link between the product and its geographical origin rather than granting priority rights to first users.
The court’s recognition of PISCO as a homonymous GI is also commendable. Granting Peru and Chile both equal rights is a practical and market-oriented approach and assigning the terms Peruvian PISCO and Chilean PISCO respectively, allows them to co-exist, preventing confusion in consumers while also protecting the interests of both the producer. Further, the judgment aligns with the spirit of the TRIPS agreement which expressly recognises the concept of homonymous GI as it ensures fairness.
The critics may question whether the court fully addressed Peru’s historical claim about the origin of PISCO exclusively in Peru. The critics may argue that granting equal rights may hamper the cultural and historical identity associated with Peruvian PISCO . The judgment also leaves the question regarding the standards and evidence required to establish homonymous GI in future cases.
Overall this judgment strengthens the Indian GI law resolving further competing geographical claims with coexistence rather than exclusivity.
Conclusion
This is a big development for Indian GI law. The Court made the right point that trademark rules cannot just be imported to geographical indications. It recognized both Peruvian and Chilean Pisco, taking a fair and practical stance that protects producer communities while avoiding consumer confusion. Although some questions about Pisco’s origins and standards for similar GIs aren’t answered, the decision still strengthens Indian GI law and sets a key example for handling future disputes with coexistence instead of exclusivity.
References
Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan attorneys, in good spirits: The Geographical Indication war over ‘Pisco’ https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b955ef25-5a2c-4505-81ac 9d68cee7b0a7
Soumya Juneja, A spirited debate: PISCO , India and battle for a name https://www.candcip.com/single-post/a-spirited-debate-pisco-india-and-the-battle for-a-name
Gaurav Mishra,Two Piscos, One Bar: Delhi High Court Division Bench Confirms Dual GI Identity for Peru and Chile https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/pisco gi-division-bench-peru-chile-2026/
India code; The geographical indications of goods(registration and protection) act 1999. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1981/5/A1999-48.pdf 2. India code; Trademarks Act,1999
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2 C_1999.pdf
UNCTAD; TRIPS agreement https://unctad.org/system/files/official document/ite1_en.pdf
Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4774. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35667092/
Embassy of Peru v. Union of India & Ors., LPA 577/2025https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181634648/
PISCO Dispute
Karishma Lokwani
DM Harish School of Law
A Case of Homonymous Geographical Indications
Case name: Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union Of India & Ors. Citation: 2025:DHC:5339
Case Number: W.P.(C)-IPD 17/2021
SCC Online Citation: 2025 SCC Online Del 4774
Case Title on Appeal: Embassy of Peru v. Union of India & Ors. Case Number: LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025
Abstract
The piece discusses Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. v. Union of India and Ors, a key GI clash between Chile and Peru over “PISCO.” It looks at homonymous geographical indications and the differences between trademark and GI law using the Geographical Indications Act, 1999 and the TRIPS Agreement. The judgment pushes for resolving competing geographical claims via coexistence rather than exclusivity.
Introduction
Say, for the sake of argument, that there was a wine called Hibat, made in Kashmir before Partition. When India and Pakistan were divided, producers on both sides continued to make it, and consumers on both sides regarded both versions as authentic Hibat. If one country subsequently obtained an exclusive GI over the name, producers in the other country would be unfairly excluded, despite their historical link to the product. This hypothetical is very close to the dispute in Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts
The dispute concerned the geographical indication “PISCO”, an alcoholic beverage made from grapes and produced in both Peru and Chile. In 2005, the Peruvian Embassy filed an application for registration of “PISCO” as a GI in India. The Registrar registered “Peruvian PISCO” to differentiate it from the Chilean producers. However, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in 2018 deleted the geographical qualifier and allowed registration of the term “PISCO” per se. This decision was challenged by the Chilean producers before the Delhi High Court who also sought registration of “Chilean PISCO” as a separate GI. In consequence, the Court had to determine whether the exclusive right over the term could be granted to Peru.
Core questions
1. Whether the term PISCO can be granted exclusively as a GI to Peru or whether Chile does have coexisting rights over it.
2. Whether Chilean and Peruvian PISCOs are homonymous GI’s.
3. Whether IPAB while giving its decision ignored the provisions of the geographical indications of goods (registration and protection),1999, and international principles under the TRIPS agreement
Arguments
Chile argued that GI law is distinct from trademark law and is based on the geographical connection between a product and its place of origin. Chile had been producing PISCO for hundreds of years, was internationally recognized and therefore entitled to GI protection.
Peru argued that PISCO was uniquely Peruvian, and that the name was taken from a Peruvian city, port and valley. It submitted that Chile’s claim was invalid and that the Registrar had wrongly inserted the qualifier “Peruvian” in the registration.
Judgment/court reasoning
The Court held that trademark doctrines like prior use and misappropriation are not to be imported into GI law. Unlike trademarks, GIs protect the association of a product with its geographical origin. The Court found that PISCO is associated with Peru and Chile by consumers and international markets. It therefore treated the dispute as one of homonymous geographical indications, a concept known under the TRIPS Agreement. The Court directed that the GI register reflect “Peruvian PISCO” to balance the interests of both producer groups and avoid consumer confusion, and allowed consideration of Chile’s application for “Chilean PISCO.” The Court also relied on the existence of ‘Banglar Rasogolla’ and ‘Odisha Rasagola’ to show that Indian law allows for the protection of homonymous GIs.
Impact of judgement
The judgment is a major development in Indian GI jurisprudence. The Court therefore acknowledged the potential for coexistence of “Peruvian PISCO” and “Chilean PISCO,” and confirmed that the protection of homonymous GIs can be an alternative to exclusivity in cases of conflicting geographical claims. The ruling gives guidance for future conflicts on products that are linked to more than one region and brings Indian law in line with the principles recognised under the TRIPS Agreement.
Critical assessment
The court clarified that trademarks and GIs are two different things. They correctly held that prior use and misappropriation are the core concepts of trademark law and cannot be automatically imported to GI. This approach stays consistent with what is given in the Geographical Indications Act 1999 which protects the link between the product and its geographical origin rather than granting priority rights to first users.
The court’s recognition of PISCO as a homonymous GI is also commendable. Granting Peru and Chile both equal rights is a practical and market-oriented approach and assigning the terms Peruvian PISCO and Chilean PISCO respectively, allows them to co-exist, preventing confusion in consumers while also protecting the interests of both the producer. Further, the judgment aligns with the spirit of the TRIPS agreement which expressly recognises the concept of homonymous GI as it ensures fairness.
The critics may question whether the court fully addressed Peru’s historical claim about the origin of PISCO exclusively in Peru. The critics may argue that granting equal rights may hamper the cultural and historical identity associated with Peruvian PISCO . The judgment also leaves the question regarding the standards and evidence required to establish homonymous GI in future cases.
Overall this judgment strengthens the Indian GI law resolving further competing geographical claims with coexistence rather than exclusivity.
Conclusion
This is a big development for Indian GI law. The Court made the right point that trademark rules cannot just be imported to geographical indications. It recognized both Peruvian and Chilean Pisco, taking a fair and practical stance that protects producer communities while avoiding consumer confusion. Although some questions about Pisco’s origins and standards for similar GIs aren’t answered, the decision still strengthens Indian GI law and sets a key example for handling future disputes with coexistence instead of exclusivity.
References
Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan attorneys, in good spirits: The Geographical Indication war over ‘Pisco’ https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=b955ef25-5a2c-4505-81ac 9d68cee7b0a7
Soumya Juneja, A spirited debate: PISCO , India and battle for a name https://www.candcip.com/single-post/a-spirited-debate-pisco-india-and-the-battle for-a-name
Gaurav Mishra,Two Piscos, One Bar: Delhi High Court Division Bench Confirms Dual GI Identity for Peru and Chile https://www.bananaip.com/intellepedia/pisco gi-division-bench-peru-chile-2026/
India code; The geographical indications of goods(registration and protection) act 1999. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1981/5/A1999-48.pdf 2. India code; Trademarks Act,1999
https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/15427/1/the_trade_marks_act%2 C_1999.pdf
UNCTAD; TRIPS agreement https://unctad.org/system/files/official document/ite1_en.pdf
Asociación de Productores de Pisco A.G. v. Union of India & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4774. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/35667092/
Embassy of Peru v. Union of India & Ors., LPA 577/2025https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181634648/
Share Us On Socials
Other Recent Blog Posts
THE POTATO PATENT BATTLE
CASE NAME: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti CITATION: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PV) 2/2022 & IAs 7898/2022 & 7900/2022, decided on 5 July 2023 COURT:
OWNING YOUR DIGITAL DOPPELGANGER
ABSTRACT Who owns your digital twin, and who protects it? Imagine a doppelganger of yourself or your machine, not in flesh and blood but in
FROM PITCH TO PIRACY
PROTECTING CREATIVE EXPRESSION CASE NAME: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404; 2003 (3) MHLJ 695; 2003 (27)
PROTECTING THE BLUEPRINT
SILICON’S SILENT BATTLE ABSTRACT What happens when the invisible blueprint of our digital age the chip layout becomes the target of piracy? Who owns the
BOTTLE BATTLES
TRADE DRESS AND SHAPE MARKS IN VODKA BRANDING CASE NAME: Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. CITATION: 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom); Notice of
FROM LAUGHTER TO LAWSUITS
THE COPYRIGHT STORY BEHIND MEMES Abstract People everywhere laugh at their phones not because of the device, but because someone has cleverly mocked a scenario