The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to the Peruvian Embassy, which sought to halt the processing of Chile’s application for recognition of ‘Chilean pisco’ in India, marking the latest development in a decades-long tussle between the two South American neighbours over the right to sell the continent’s prized pisco brandy in India.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla declined to stay a single-bench order from July that curtailed Peru’s exclusive rights over the spirit in India and directed that the geographical indication (GI) mark, previously registered for Peru as ‘pisco’, be changed to ‘Peruvian pisco’.

The plea was argued by Peru’s senior counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who pressed for interim protection, contending that the absence of such relief caused serious prejudice. He noted that pisco was part of Peru’s cultural identity and enjoyed global recognition, but the court said it was not convinced this constituted “irreparable loss”. Pisco is a strong grape brandy with around 42% alcohol, distilled from fermented black Quebranta grapes.

“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,” Kaul argued.

The court directed that the case be listed for a final hearing on 15 October but declined to grant any interim relief, allowing Chile to continue with its application.

Landmark case, landmark ruling

This is the first case in which two countries have contested GI rights before an Indian court. GIs are defined under India’s GI Act and the WTO’s TRIPS agreement as signs that identify a product as originating from a specific region. Examples include Darjeeling tea, Basmati rice, and Kanchipuram silk.

Mint reported on 7 July that a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court settled the 20-year legal battle. Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside an order by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order, holding that the dispute concerned homonymous GIs — with identical names but different geographical origins and distinct characteristics — and allowed both countries to sell pisco in India.

Liquor executives and lawyers described the ruling as a landmark decision, one that would strengthen India’s GI framework by ensuring authentic products were properly labeled and protected.

For lovers of pisco, a niche, premium liquor produced primarily in Peru’s Ica Valley since the 16th century, the ruling means a wider choice and clarity over its origin.

Two-decade fight

The dispute began in 2005, when the Embassy of Peru applied for GI protection in India for ‘pisco’, seeking exclusive rights over the name for its grape-based brandy. Chilean producers opposed the move, arguing that ‘pisco’ had long been produced in regions such as Coquimbo and Atacama, with records dating back to 1733.

In 2009, India’s GI registrar accepted Peru’s application, registering it as ‘Peruvian Pisco’ to avoid consumer confusion. Peru challenged this decision, and in 2018 the IPAB granted Peru sole rights over the name, effectively shutting out Chilean producers.

Chilean associations later approached the Delhi High Court, leading to the single-bench ruling that both countries could use the name with clear country labels, ordering the GI registrar to update Peru’s registration to ‘Peruvian pisco” and process Chile’s application. This prompted Peru to appeal to the division bench, leading to the current deliberations.