The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice on the Embassy of Peru's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court judgment which declined Peru an exclusive standalone geographical indication (GI) for “PISCO” in India.

The High Court held that the term has historically been associated with alcoholic beverages originating from both Peru and Chile, making exclusive protection likely to confuse consumers.

The Supreme Court was hearing the Embassy of Peru's special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision that Peru could not secure an exclusive standalone “PISCO” geographical indication (GI) in India for its national spirit. 

Describing the dispute as a “Tale of Two Countries,” the High Court was considering Peru's appeal against a Single Judge's ruling that the spirit could be registered in India only as “PERUVIAN PISCO”, rather than simply “PISCO.”

The Division Bench upheld the ruling, holding that the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 bars registration where use of a GI is likely to deceive or confuse consumers. It found that available material established longstanding international use of “Pisco” for spirits produced in both Peru and Chile.

A bench of Justices K.V. Viswanathan and Arun Palli issued notice in the case, directed completion of pleadings and posted the matter on October 12, 2026 for further hearing. 

Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and J. Sai Deepak, appearing for the Embassy of Peru, argued that “PISCO” itself is a geographical indication and source identifier and cannot be diluted by adding a country-specific prefix merely because Chile also uses the term.

Kaul submitted, “This is an important issue for your Lordships' kind consideration... a GI, which itself is a source identifier, [cannot] be reduced to a generic term by saying that it is a Peruvian Pisco, or a Chilean Pisco.”

He argued that requiring the expression “Peruvian Pisco” would be akin to describing Champagne with an additional national prefix. “That would amount to saying that it's French champagne, or Spanish champagne, or English champagne,” he submitted.

Kaul told the bench that Peru enjoys GI protection for Pisco in around 82 countries, generally without any prefix or suffix. He submitted that only three countries had adopted a different position, namely Chile itself, Costa Rica and El Salvador, for historical or traditional reasons.

Addressing the relevance of Free Trade Agreements relied upon by the other side, Kaul argued that such agreements merely permit importation of Chilean Pisco and do not determine statutory GI rights between the parties. “FTAs are not where you're permitted to import Chilean Pisco. FDA doesn't deal and determine a statutory right,” he submitted.

He also relied on historical material concerning Chile, including memoirs of former Chilean Presidents, Nobel laureates and former soldiers, to argue that Chile had subsequently adopted the name “Pisco” for its own beverage. According to him, this followed developments during and after the period of American Prohibition.

Kaul submitted that historical evidence showed that Chile had changed the name of a locality to Pisco and subsequently used the term for its alcoholic beverage. He argued that continued use of the term could not itself confer a statutory right if the original geographical association belonged to Peru.

The counsel then referred the bench to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, submitting that the legislation was intended both to protect producers and to prevent consumer deception.

He read Section 9 of the Act, which bars registration of a GI “the use of which would be likely to deceive or cause confusion”, besides excluding generic names and indications.

Kaul also referred to Sections 20 and 22, dealing with passing off and infringement, arguing that the statutory scheme protected the geographical origin represented by a GI.

He further challenged the High Court's approach to the historical evidence, arguing that the Division Bench had effectively reappreciated material which had already been examined by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board. He submitted that the IPAB had considered extensive historical material, including evidence concerning transnational GIs and the historical origins of Pisco.

Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak submitted that the Registrar's decision to add the prefix “Peruvian” effectively reduced the GI to a generic term.

“The Registrar's judgment basically says that, while you have rights over Pisco, but because Chile is also selling Pisco, you call instead Peruvian Pisco. This is not permissible under Section 9 whatsoever,” he argued.

He submitted that Section 9 constituted an absolute statutory bar and that the fact that Chile also used the term could not justify dilution of Peru's GI.

Sai Deepak further challenged the High Court's reliance on the concept of a homonymous GI. He submitted that Chile had originally advanced a case based on a shared history of Pisco, but subsequently sought to characterise the two products as different products having similar names.

“Both these arguments cannot survive together,” he submitted. “You can't be a GI, and the homonymous GIs.”

He argued that the High Court had therefore adopted a fundamentally problematic approach by allowing a new theory of homonymous geographical indications to enter the dispute at a later stage.

Sai Deepak also submitted that the Division Bench had failed to properly consider the statutory consequences under Sections 9, 20 and 22 of the GI Act. He referred to the Supreme Court's decisions recognising the principle of extended passing off in relation to geographical indications such as Scotch whisky.

He sought to distinguish the present case from transnational GI disputes such as Basmati, pointing out that Peru and Chile are separated by a considerable geographical distance.

Appearing for the Union of India, Senior Advocate Liz Mathew, defended the High Court's reasoning and relied upon its factual findings concerning the historical use of “Pisco” in Chile.

Mathew referred the bench to paragraph 69 of the impugned judgment, which records, “There can be no doubt that if Pisco was being used since long in Chile for an alcoholic beverage, grant of GI Pisco exclusively to Peru is likely to result in confusion amongst consumers.”

She further pointed out that Peru itself did not dispute that Pisco had historically been used in Chile to denote an alcoholic beverage, although Peru alleged that Chile's adoption of the term was dishonest.

The Union's counsel submitted that the Registrar had statutory authority to make an appropriate adaptation to the GI where necessary to avoid consumer confusion. Since historical evidence established use of Pisco for alcoholic beverages from both countries, the addition of the geographical prefix was justified.

After hearing the parties, the Supreme Court issued notice on the Embassy of Peru's special leave petition. 

Tags:    
Case Title :  EMBASSY OF PERU Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.Case Number :  SLP(C) No. 26484/2026