Delhi High Court directs GI labelling as ‘Peruvian PISCO’ and ‘Chilean PISCO’ to avoid public confusion in global PISCO dispute.

Case in News

Delhi High Court rules on PISCO GI battle resolving Peru-Chile dispute over alcoholic beverage’s name .

Case Overview

Case Name: Asociación de Productores de Pisco (Chile) vs. Union of India

On July 7, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in a long-standing intellectual property dispute over the geographical indication (GI) for PISCO, an alcoholic beverage claimed by both Chile and Peru . The case challenged the 2018 order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) that had granted exclusive GI rights to Peru without a geographic prefix . Justice Mini Pushkarna ruled in favor of balanced recognition, directing the GI Registrar to label the products as ‘Peruvian PISCO’ and ‘Chilean PISCO’ to avoid misleading Indian consumers .

Key Aspects

The Court examined historical evidence, international recognition and production methods of both countries . It emphasized the need to protect consumer interests while recognizing both claims under Indian and international law .

• In 2005, Peru applied for GI registration of PISCO in India .
  
• Chile opposed the application, citing centuries-old production history .
  
• GI Registrar in 2009 had directed use of “Peruvian PISCO” to avoid confusion .
  
• IPAB reversed this in 2018 granting exclusive rights to Peru .
  
• Chile challenged this before the Delhi High Court citing global recognition .
  
• The Court held both nations must use geographic prefixes to protect consumer clarity .
  

Legal Insights

The Court based its decision on statutory GI laws and India’s TRIPS obligations . It clarified that trademark doctrines like prior use and dishonesty are irrelevant to GI law .

• Section 10, Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999: Allows homonymous GI registrations if public confusion is prevented .
  
• Section 11(1), GI Act : Recognizes legal standing of foreign entities (like embassies) to file GI applications.
  
• Article 22(3), TRIPS Agreement : Obligates WTO members to protect homonymous geographical indications with suitable distinctions.
  
• Trademark concepts under Section 11, Trade Marks Act, 1999 : Not applicable in GI disputes, as GI law focuses on regional product identity, not ownership .
  

Court’s Verdict

The court gave the verdict–

• GI tag for Peru must be modified to ‘Peruvian PISCO’ .
  
• GI Registrar directed to process Chile’s application for ‘Chilean PISCO’ .
  
• The Court upheld fair GI protection under Indian and international law without granting exclusive rights to either party .
  

Source- High Court of Delhi

Read also – Legal Glossary –Verdict