Delhi HC clarifies ‘Pisco’ brandy belongs to both Peru and Chile

South American niche brandy Pisco belongs to both Peru and Chile, the Delhi High Court ruled on Wednesday, rejecting the Peruvian embassy’s plea seeking exclusive rights to the name in India.

A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla held that both Peru and Chile have long-standing use of the mark ‘Pisco’ for alcoholic beverages, and therefore no single country can claim exclusivity over it in India.

The court said Peru cannot have exclusive rights to the name ‘Pisco’ because it is not uniquely linked to any one country. Since both nations have been using the name for a considerable period, the law does not permit granting exclusive GI protection to Peru alone.

The court upheld the single-judge order of 7 July 2025, allowing both countries to use the term with clear origin-based labels such as ‘Peruvian pisco’ and ‘Chilean pisco’, ensuring consumers can distinguish between the two.

“We have dismissed the appeal. We have held, firstly, that both Peru and Chile had established use of the mark ‘Pisco’ for alcoholic beverages. This is a case where both of them have been using the same mark for a considerable period of time,” the court noted orally.

The detailed written judgment was not available till press time.

The origins of Pisco brandy

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 greater clarity over its origin. It is a clear, strong grape brandy with an alcohol content of around 42%, distilled from fermented Quebranta grapes.

Peru argued that Pisco is an integral part of its cultural identity and is widely recognised globally. It said that as many as 82 countries accept Pisco as Peru’s GI and claimed that India’s position causes irreparable harm and grievance.

This is the first case in which two countries have contested GI rights before an Indian court. GIs, under India’s law and the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or WTO TRIPS agreement, identify products as originating from a specific region, such as Darjeeling tea, Basmati rice, and Kanchipuram silk.

The dispute centres on homonymous GIs, which are geographical indication names that are identical but used for products from different places.

On 7 July, a single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court settled the two-decade legal battle by setting aside an order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). The court held that the dispute involved homonymous GIs with identical names but different geographical origins, and allowed both countries to sell Pisco in India. This prompted Peru to approach the division bench for relief.

Liquor executives and lawyers had described the single-bench ruling as a landmark decision that would strengthen India’s GI framework by ensuring authentic products are properly labelled and protected.

Though Pisco imports remain limited, with just a few hundred cases annually, mainly in high-end bars, mixology events and five-star hotels, it sits alongside other niche premium spirits like grappa, mezcal and armagnac in India. Occasionally imported brands include Barsol from Peru, Capel from Chile, La Diablada, and ABA Pisco.

In India, Pisco typically retails from ₹3,200 to ₹4,400 a bottle, placing it among premium spirits like grappa and mezcal, and just below cognac and armagnac.

Two-decade fight

The dispute began in 2005, when the Peruvian embassy 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 has 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 allowed both countries to use the name with clear country labels. The court then directed the GI registrar to update Peru’s registration to ‘Peruvian pisco’ and to process Chile’s application, prompting Peru to appeal to the division bench. With that appeal now rejected, Peru can seek relief from the Supreme Court.