The Delhi High Court has refused to give interim relief to the Embassy of Peru in its challenge to a July 7 order on the Geographical Indication (GI) for “PISCO” liquor. The order requires the registered GI to be changed from “PISCO” to “Peruvian PISCO.”

A Division Bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, have refused to buy stay the processing of Chile’s application for the recognition of “Chilean PISCO”, while the court is still considering the Peruvian Embassy’s petition. The Bench stated, "We are not convinced that irreparable loss [will be caused]. It will be appropriate if the appeal itself is heard.”

Background

This GI dispute stems from Peru’s initial 2005 application for GI protection for “PISCO” in India, which was objected by Chilean producers claiming longstanding use of the term for the grape-based spirits made in specific regions of Chile.

In 2009, the GI Registrar approved Peru’s claim but stated that to avoid confusion, the registration name must indicate “Peruvian PISCO”. This decision was overturned in 2018 by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board(IPAB) granting Peru exclusive rights to “PISCO” but Chile’s association later challenged this before the Delhi High Court.

On July 7, 2025, Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the earlier IPAB order and held that the issue involved homogenous IGs i.e. identical names from different geographical sources but with different characteristics. The Court ordered Peru's registration to be amended to "Peruvian PISCO" and allowed for the processing of Chile's application for "Chilean PISCO."

Peru, represented by their counsel, sought interim relief and claimed that if no relief was provided, it could result in serious harm to Peru’s cultural identity and heritage.

Kaul stated, “Eighty-two countries have accepted PISCO as Peru’s GI. Only India has said otherwise. The damage is irreparable, and we as a country are aggrieved,”.

Describing the matter as unprecedented, he told the court that for the first time, two countries were fighting over GI rights in front of an Indian court. Additionally he argued, “This is 300 years of our heritage. We have details from memoirs of former presidents saying Chile has not been able to manufacture PISCO.”

Chile, represented by their counsel, opposed both the request for interim relief as well as Peru's legal challenge, and argued that the appropriate appeal route regarding a writ petition under Article 226 is to the Supreme Court, not a Division Bench of the High Court.

Ultimately, the Division Bench concluded that interim protection was not warranted and that Peru’s claims could be thoroughly reviewed during the final hearing scheduled for 15 October 2025.

Order Awaited

Case Title: ASOCIACION DE PRODUCTORES DE PISCO A.G. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Advocate for petitioner : Ms. Shwetasree Majumder

Advocate for the respondent: Mr. Vijay Joshi