On July 14, 2025, the Delhi High Court issued an unprecedented ruling in the long-standing dispute between Chile and Peru over the right to use the denomination “Pisco” in the international market.
This decision allows Chile to register the name “Chilean Pisco” as a geographical indication (GI) in India, reversing the exclusivity previously held by Peru.
The ruling marks a milestone in the decades-long legal conflict between the two countries over international recognition of this iconic spirit.
Background and Legal Context
The dispute over the name “Pisco” has deep historical, cultural, and commercial roots. Peru argues that the term refers exclusively to a distillate originating from its namesake region, Pisco, while Chile defends its use based on over a century of production tradition, especially in the valleys of the Coquimbo region.
Since 1936, Chile has legally recognized the term “pisco” as a denomination of origin exclusive to its territory, strengthening its position in foreign trade as the oldest such designation in South America.
In India, the dispute began in 2005 when Peru applied to register “Peruvian Pisco” as a GI. Chile formally opposed in 2007, but in 2009 the Chennai Registry granted Peru registration under the term “Pisco.”
In 2018, the then-new Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) ruled in favor of Peru, extending protection to the unqualified term “Pisco,” effectively barring Chilean producers from using the name in India.
In response, the Chilean government and pisco producers appealed to the Delhi High Court, arguing that both countries have legitimately produced and marketed pisco for generations and that exclusivity amounted to discrimination and violated international trade and GI treaties.
The Delhi High Court Ruling
Judge Mini Pushkarna’s decision represents a paradigm shift in GI protection. The Court concluded that “Pisco” can be considered a homonymous geographical indication—a legitimate shared denomination—as long as origin is clearly differentiated on labels.
As a result, Peru’s exclusivity was revoked, and India’s Geographical Indications Registry was ordered to authorize the registration of “Chilean Pisco.”
The judge found that blocking Chile’s registration violated principles of fairness and consumer protection, since Indian regulations require transparency about product origin.
The use of “Chilean Pisco,” as presented by Chile, fulfills these requirements by explicitly indicating its national origin, without misleading or appropriating another country’s cultural heritage.
The ruling also references international standards in the TRIPS Agreement, specifically Article 22.3, which recognizes the existence of homonymous GIs and allows coexistence with safeguards to prevent consumer confusion.
International Implications
The decision will have an immediate impact on Chilean pisco access to the Indian market—one of the world’s largest and most dynamic.
Chilean producers can now market their spirit in India under “Chilean Pisco,” opening new export opportunities.
For Peru, it means loss of exclusivity, though its GI “Peruvian Pisco” remains protected. Any attempt to market the spirit without that designation can be legally challenged, preventing label confusion.
This will require updating branding strategies in India, where “pisco” had been promoted without qualifiers.
Broader implications include precedent for similar disputes in Thailand, Switzerland, and the EU, where Chile has actively defended its pisco denomination.
The ruling also strengthens the legitimacy of homonymous GIs—a recognized but seldom-used mechanism enabling products from different regions to share names, provided consumer clarity is maintained.
Commercial Diplomacy Implications
For Chile’s trade policy, the ruling is a major diplomatic and legal victory. It reflects a sustained strategy combining legal actions, international promotion, and a consistent cultural narrative around the origin and quality of Chilean pisco.
Chile’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and ProChile have stated that the decision will accelerate efforts to present the “Cultural Landscape of Chilean Pisco” to UNESCO as Intangible Cultural Heritage, reinforcing the link between region, tradition, and product.
For Peru, while its GI remains, the ruling suggests that an exclusivity-based approach may be less effective in legal systems that favor plurality of origins.
