By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 17 October 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice: see our disclaimer
Geographical Indication disputes in India are usually framed as a single country trying to lock up a name, and most of the time that framing is accurate. The long-running fight over 'Pisco', the grape brandy both Peru and Chile claim as their own, is the exception, because both countries have a genuine, decades-old claim to the same word, and Indian law had no settled answer for what happens when two legitimate GI claimants want the same term. The Delhi High Court's Division Bench supplied an answer in March 2026, and it is one every importer, distributor, and GI applicant dealing with a shared or contested name needs to understand.
This guide explains what the court actually decided, why it rejected Peru's bid for exclusive rights over the bare word 'Pisco', and what qualified, homonymous GI protection means in practice for anyone using or registering a similarly shared name.
How the Pisco Dispute Reached the Delhi High Court
The Embassy of Peru applied in 2005 to register 'Pisco' as a Geographical Indication in India, seeking exclusive rights over the term for grape brandy produced in Peru. The Intellectual Property Appellate Board, in a decision dated 29 November 2018, overturned an earlier conditional registration by the Registrar and granted Peru exclusivity over the unqualified word 'Pisco'. A single judge of the Delhi High Court later reversed that decision, and Peru appealed to a Division Bench, which delivered its ruling in March 2026, upholding the single judge and dismissing Peru's claim to exclusive rights over the bare term.
Running alongside this was Chile's own long-standing use of 'Pisco' for its own grape brandy, a product with its own geographic indication status in Chile and a substantial export history under that name. The case therefore was never simply about whether 'Pisco' deserved protection in India. It was about whether protection for one country's version of the name could be exclusive, shutting out a second country with its own equally genuine claim to the same word.
What the Division Bench Actually Held
The Division Bench confirmed that both Peru and Chile have legitimate rights to the geographical indication 'Pisco' in India, but only in a qualified, composite form: Peru registers and uses 'Peruvian Pisco', and Chile registers and uses 'Chilean Pisco'. Neither country gets exclusive control over the bare, standalone word. The court grounded this in Section 9(a) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which bars registration of an indication where its use would be likely to deceive or cause confusion, reasoning that granting one country exclusivity over the unqualified term, when both countries have an established history of using 'Pisco' for their own grape brandy, would itself create exactly that kind of confusion.
This is what GI practitioners call homonymous protection, where the same or a similar term is protected for more than one geographic origin at once, with each registration distinguished by a qualifying word that signals which origin's version is meant. The European Union's own GI framework has long recognised homonymous indications in limited circumstances, and the Delhi High Court's ruling brings Indian GI law into alignment with that approach for a case where the facts genuinely called for it.
Why This Is Not a 'Generic Name' Ruling
It would be a mistake to read this case as holding that 'Pisco' has become a generic product category that nobody can control, the way 'cheddar' or 'champagne' style arguments sometimes run in other jurisdictions. The Division Bench's reasoning rests specifically on the risk of deception or confusion under Section 9(a), given that two countries both have a genuine, documented claim to the name, not on a finding that the term has lost its connection to geographic origin altogether, which is the separate generic-name ground found in Section 9(f) of the Act.
The distinction matters because the remedy the court actually gave reflects it: both Peru and Chile keep enforceable, qualified GI rights over their own version of the name. A true generic-name finding would instead have meant nobody gets GI protection over the term at all, since a name found to be generic under Section 9(f) is simply refused registration outright. What happened with Pisco is narrower and, for both claimant countries, considerably better than that outcome would have been.
What This Means for Importers and Distributors
An importer or distributor bringing grape brandy into India under the Pisco name from either Peru or Chile needs to use the qualified form that matches the actual origin of the product, Peruvian Pisco for Peruvian-origin brandy, Chilean Pisco for Chilean-origin brandy, rather than the bare word alone. Using the unqualified term in a way that does not make the actual country of origin clear risks exactly the kind of confusion the court's Section 9(a) reasoning was built around, even though neither country holds exclusive rights over the bare word itself.
For a product from a third country that also happens to produce something called Pisco, or something marketed under a similar name, the position after this ruling is more exposed rather than less. The ruling confirms that Peru and Chile both have enforceable rights over their own qualified versions of the name; it does not say the term is free for anyone, anywhere, to use without qualification. A third-origin producer wanting to use a similar name would need its own, independent basis for doing so, and should not assume that because neither Peru nor Chile monopolises the bare word, the field is open.
The Broader Lesson for GI Applicants With a Shared Name
Any GI applicant anticipating that another country, or another region within India, might have a competing, genuine claim to the same or a very similar term should think about seeking a qualified, composite registration from the outset, rather than fighting for exclusivity over the bare term and risking years of litigation before arriving at the same qualified outcome a composite application could have secured immediately. The Pisco litigation ran from a 2005 application through a 2018 IPAB order, a single-judge reversal, and a 2026 Division Bench ruling, more than two decades of uncertainty that a composite filing strategy might have avoided entirely for at least the Indian market.
The practical takeaway for Indian GI practice generally is that Section 9(a)'s confusion-based bar can produce a homonymous, shared outcome where two genuine claimants exist, and that outcome is now a live precedent rather than a theoretical possibility. Any applicant facing a rival claim with a genuinely parallel history of use should factor this precedent into how it frames its own application and any opposition strategy.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did the Delhi High Court rule that 'Pisco' is a generic name anyone can use?
No. The court held that both Peru and Chile have legitimate, qualified GI rights over the name, as 'Peruvian Pisco' and 'Chilean Pisco' respectively, based on the risk of confusion between two genuine claimants under Section 9(a) of the GI Act. This is different from a generic-name finding under Section 9(f), which would have refused protection to the term altogether.
Can Peru or Chile stop the other from using the word 'Pisco' in India?
Neither country can claim exclusive rights over the bare, unqualified word. Each has enforceable rights over its own qualified, composite form of the name, Peruvian Pisco for Peru and Chilean Pisco for Chile, and each can act against misuse of its own qualified version, but not against the other's equally legitimate qualified use.
What is a homonymous Geographical Indication?
It is GI protection granted to the same or a very similar term for more than one geographic origin at once, with each registration distinguished by a qualifying word identifying the specific origin. The Pisco ruling is a rare Indian example, grounded in Section 9(a)'s bar on registrations likely to deceive or confuse, rather than a separate statutory homonymous-GI provision.
Does this ruling help a third country that also makes a product called Pisco?
Not automatically. The ruling confirms Peru's and Chile's own qualified rights; it does not declare the bare term open for any origin to use without qualification. A producer from a different country would need its own independent legal basis to use a similar name and should not assume the field is open simply because neither Peru nor Chile has exclusive control.
What should a GI applicant do if another country has a genuinely competing claim to the same name?
Consider seeking a qualified, composite registration that includes the country or region name from the outset, rather than pursuing exclusivity over the bare term. The Pisco dispute took more than two decades to resolve into exactly that kind of qualified outcome, which an early composite filing strategy might have reached far sooner.
References & Further Reading
The provisions and rulings below were relied on for this guide. The position can change with amendments and later decisions, so check the current text and the latest case law before acting on any of it.
- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, Section 9(a) and Section 9(f)
- Embassy of Peru v. Union of India and Others, Delhi High Court Division Bench, 2026:DHC:2259-DB (March 2026)
- Intellectual Property Appellate Board order dated 29 November 2018