“A Tale of Two Countries”. That is how the Delhi HC Division Bench (“DB”) described the judgment dated 18th March 2026 in the Appeal by the Embassy of Peru against the July 2025 Pisco decision by Justice Mini Pushkarna. Extensively covered on our blog previously, in travelling through the IPAB and the Delhi HC, the Pisco saga has brought to light the concept of “homonymous GIs” covered under S. 10 of the GI Act. Homonymous GIs are indications that sound/spell alike but identify products/services originating from different regions.
As readers may recall, while the IPAB had permitted the registration of the GI “Pisco” in favor of the Peruvian Embassy, instead of the prefixed tag “Peruvian Pisco” allowed by the Registrar in 2009, the single judge bench of the Delhi HC overturned the IPAB’s order. Examining a range of FTAs, TRIPS provisions, and social and political histories of Pisco production in Chile and Peru, Justice Pushkarna held that the prefix “Peruvian” is essential to avoid deception/confusion. In this post, I look at the DB’s approach towards Peru’s claims, and its broader implications on the jurisprudence around homonymous GIs.
Why the DB Rejected Peru’s Pisco GI Claim
Before the DB, Peru’s central claim was the origin and recognition of Pisco as a grape brandy from Peru, not Chile. Hence, Peru rejected all claims by Chile to rights in the GI “Pisco”. The DB relied solely on S. 9(a) of the GI Act to make this determination (s. 9(a) prohibits the registration of GIs, the use of which would likely cause deception or confusion). Rightly noting that the proscription of confusing or deceptive GIs is agnostic to considerations such as prior use and equity, the Bench held that the sole use of “Pisco” by Peru would lead to confusion among consumers. Hence, allegations by the appellant that Chile “dishonestly misappropriated” the Pisco GI were found to have no bearing on the determination under S. 9(a). After all, there were no submissions from the Peruvian side to debate the use of “Pisco” in Chile, to denote an alcoholic beverage.
Similar to the approach adopted by Justice Pushkarna, the DB found bilateral FTAs a manifest international recognition of the fact that the Chilean alcoholic beverage in contention was known as Pisco outside Chile as well. As a natural consequence thereof, the sole use of the GI “Pisco” by Peru would result in confusion among the consuming public, as it would lead to a presumption that the beverage is manufactured in Peru alone.
How the DB’s Reasoning Differed from the Single Judge Bench
1. Difference in Perspective on S. 9(g) of the Act
Significantly, both the judgments differed in their interpretation of S. 9(g). S. 9(g) prohibits the registration of GIs “which, although literally true as to the territory, region or locality in which the goods originate, but falsely represent to the persons that the goods originate in another territory, region or locality”. While Justice Pushkarna had held that this provision is bound to be attracted in the absence of the prefix “Peruvian” as a geographic identifier, the DB noted that by a blanket use of the GI Pisco, Peru would not be representing to anyone that the grape brandy originates elsewhere.
The former approach reads S. 9(a) and 9(g) together to avoid consumer confusion. The DB’s approach, however, is more formalistic, noting that “false representation” under S. 9(g) requires a positive representation by the GI user that the concerned goods originate elsewhere. The Bench observed how a likelihood of consumer confusion absent positive misrepresentation regarding the origin of the goods would not attract S. 9(g).
2. Grant of the Prefix “Peruvian” as a Geographical Identifier: A Layered Approach
In contrast to Justice Pushkarna’s approach, the DB observed how homonymous GIs can be registered only on an application seeking such registration. This observation of the DB proceeded as follows: firstly, the Court noted that Rule 32(1)(6)(h) of the GI Rules requires (in the case of an application seeking registration of a homonymous GI) the applicant to disclose how their application differs from earlier registered GIs and what are the steps, if any, they have undertaken to prevent consumers from being misled. These provisions would lead one to assume that the DB rejected the grant of the prefix “Peruvian” as a geographical identifier. In fact, the DB also remarked “We, therefore, regret our inability to agree with the learned Single Judge, in so far as she has proceeded on the premise that Peru could be allowed registration of the GI PISCO as a homonymous GI.”
However, this was not the case. In the second limb of its analysis, the DB moved to S. 11(6) of the Act. This provision empowers the Registrar to accept an application subject to such “amendments, modifications, conditions or limitations” as they think fit. Hence, this power of the Registrar would extend to allowing Peru’s request with the geographical identifier “Peruvian”. Relying on the same, the Court held that S. 11(6) is unfettered by any caveats and covers the grant of the GI “Peruvian Pisco”.
Finally, the third limb of the DB’s approach entailed an exercise of harmonious interpretation. The DB acknowledged how S. 16(1) of the Act dealing with the process of GI registration clearly envisages the registration of a GI of which such registration is sought. However, in light of the wide amplitude of powers granted to the Registrar under S. 11(6), s. 16(1) was read in tandem with the same.
Concluding Remarks
Some points of analysis brought forth on the SpicyIP blog have been addressed by the DB ruling. Prior use and greater goodwill, factors which inform the grant of trademarks, have clearly been termed irrelevant for GI registration. However, in admitting to the Registrar’s wide expanse of power under S. 11(6) of the Act, the DB did not delve into Rule 34 of the GI Rules. This Rule obligates the Registrar to communicate in writing to the Applicant, “any objection” to accepting their application, or other necessary “conditions, amendments, modifications” to the same. So, while the Registrar can modify/amend the grant of “Pisco” to “Peruvian Pisco”, this action cannot be devoid of communication to the Applicant. No such communication is on record here. To reiterate, neither the Examination Reports dated December 22, 2015 and December 28, 2015 nor the minutes of the Consultative Group discuss the amendment of the GI application. Hence, while we have a positive outcome yet again, the deliberation and analysis preceding the Registrar’s decision-making necessitate greater scrutiny.
The author is grateful to Praharsh for his encouragement and comments!