Section 9(a) bars standalone registration of geographical indications used concurrently by multiple territories to prevent consumer confusion.

The Embassy of Peru filed an application under Section 11(1) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (the “GI Act”), seeking registration of the term “PISCO” for an alcoholic beverage produced in Peru

The application was opposed by the Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G. (“ADP”), representing Chilean producers, who claimed that “Pisco” was also a traditional Chilean spirit

In 2009, the Assistant Registrar allowed the registration of the GI as “PERUVIAN PISCO” to prevent confusion

Peru appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which set aside the Registrar’s order and granted the standalone GI “PISCO” to Peru, holding that Chile had dishonestly misappropriated the name

On 7 July 2025, a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court set aside the IPAB order and restored the registration as “PERUVIAN PISCO,” citing the long-standing use of the term in Chile and international recognition via Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)

Peru subsequently filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).

1. Whether the Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against the judgment of the Single Judge

2. Whether Peru is entitled to the registration of the standalone GI “PISCO” under the GI Act

3. Whether the principles of homonymous GIs under Section 10 are applicable to the present case

4. Whether the Registrar/Court has the power under Section 11(6) to modify a GI application by adding a geographical prefix

Section 9(a) of the GI Act, which prohibits registration of GIs likely to deceive or cause confusion, and Section 9(g), which prohibits GIs that falsely represent the origin of goods

Section 2(1)(e), defining a geographical indication as an indication identifying goods as originating in a specific territory

Section 10 regarding homonymous GIs, noting they apply only when an identical GI is already registered

Section 11(6), which empowers the Registrar to accept applications subject to “amendments, modification, conditions or limitations”

The Court first held the LPA maintainable, as the Single Judge exercised judicial review under Article 226 rather than mere supervision under Article 227

Regarding the merits, the Court observed that while Peru satisfied the basic criteria for a GI under Section 2(1)(e), Section 9(a) acts as an absolute bar if registration causes confusion

Evidence including Chilean legislations, FTAs, and historical data demonstrated that Chile has produced a beverage called “Pisco” for nearly a century

Consequently, granting Peru an exclusive, standalone GI for “PISCO” would mislead consumers into believing all Pisco originates in Peru, violating Section 9(a)

The Court rejected Peru’s allegation that Chile “misappropriated” the term, finding the IPAB’s conclusion on dishonesty lacked credible evidence

While the Court disagreed with the Single Judge on the technical application of Section 10 (as no prior PISCO GI was registered), it upheld the result via Section 11(6)

It reasoned that the Registrar’s power to “modify” an application is broad enough to include prefixing a geographical identifier like “PERUVIAN” to ensure clarity and prevent consumer deception

It held that Peru cannot be granted the standalone GI “PISCO” due to the likelihood of confusion with Chilean products under Section 9(a)

The Court confirmed the registration of the GI “PERUVIAN PISCO” in favour of Peru, affirming that the Registrar possesses the statutory authority under Section 11(6) to impose such modifications

The Court also clarified that Peru remains free to surrender the registration if it does not wish to hold the modified GI