Landmark Ruling For India's GI Regime: Pisco Judgment And Its Far-Reaching Impact
By recognising the co-existence of 'Pisco' as a homonymous GI for both Chile and Peru, the court clarified that protection under the GI Act hinges on consumer association and geographical origin.
The Delhi High Court's recent ruling in the Pisco case marks a pivotal development in India's jurisprudence on geographical indications.
At the heart of the dispute lay the right to use the term 'Pisco' for grape-based spirits produced in both Chile and Peru. The court was tasked with determining whether both nations could claim protection for the same term under India's GI framework. In doing so, it laid down foundational principles likely to influence the adjudication of cross-border GI disputes going forward.
This landmark judgment not only reinforces the statutory scheme under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, but also establishes a clear judicial roadmap for resolving GI conflicts — distinct from traditional trademark jurisprudence. The court firmly held that concepts, such as prior use, misappropriation and dishonest adoption — central to trademark law — do not apply in the context of GIs.
By recognising the co-existence of 'Pisco' as a homonymous GI for both Chile and Peru, the court clarified that protection under the GI Act hinges on consumer association and geographical origin, rather than on chronological claims of use or registration. This ruling not only strengthens legal clarity but also aligns with India's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, paving the way for a more inclusive and balanced approach to international GI claims.
Importantly, the judgment sets a significant precedent for future disputes involving identical or homonymous GI names from different countries or regions. The court reaffirmed the primacy of the GI Act over other legal frameworks, such as the Trademarks Act, particularly in matters concerning collective rights tied to geographic origin.
It also clarified that procedural objections — such as delays in filing — cannot defeat the substantive recognition of legitimate GI claims. Most notably, the ruling confirms that homonymous GIs — like 'Pisco' from Chile and Peru — may coexist in the Indian market, provided they are adequately distinguished in terms of their geographical identity and product characteristics.
This interpretation is fully in line with Section 10 of the GI Act and Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreement and will likely serve as a guiding precedent in cases involving shared heritage products or regionally rooted goods marketed under the same name.
The ruling also carries practical implications for importers and businesses dealing in GI-tagged products. It clarifies that identical names originating from different jurisdictions may be marketed in India — so long as the labelling clearly indicates the geographical source and avoids misleading the public.
This opens up broader market access for producers of homonymous GIs, while simultaneously placing the onus on them to ensure consumer transparency and compliance with India’s labelling and GI-specific regulatory standards.
In conclusion, the Pisco judgment not only resolves a long-standing international contention but also strengthens the foundations of India’s GI regime. It reaffirms India’s commitment to safeguarding products of geographical origin, upholding global trade norms, and ensuring consumer protection.
For rights holders, producers, and practitioners alike, the ruling offers a well-defined legal framework for navigating the complex landscape of overlapping GI claims in an increasingly interconnected marketplace.
Sanjoli Jain is a Counsel at Law SB
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of NDTV Profit or its editorial team.
