On Wednesday, Peru lost the battle for exclusivity as the Delhi High Court, in a Dickensian turn of phrase, termed the dispute as a “Tale of Two Countries.”In September last year, the Latin American country Peru, a rare litigant at an Indian court, declared at the Delhi High Court – “this matter will involve heavy intoxication arguments”. The fight was over exclusive protection over the Geographical Indication (GI) of the grape-fermented brandy from the region, ‘Pisco’, in favour of Peru. On Wednesday, Peru lost the battle for exclusivity as the Delhi High Court, in a Dickensian turn of phrase, termed the dispute as a “Tale of Two Countries.”A division bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla, dismissing an appeal by Peru, through its Embassy in India, challenging a single judge’s order from July last year, concluded: “We are clear, however, in our mind, that Peru cannot be allowed registration of the GI PISCO as a standalone GI.”Peru’s key objection was with respect to sharing with Chile the GI over Pisco, in India. A country-specific prefix to the beverage dilutes Peru’s centuries-old unique goodwill over the product and the “historical weight”, it had told the court. “Eighty-two countries grant me without (country-based) prefix, India is the only country with prefix,” Peru had said in court in September. It was their case that Pisco by itself is a GI, and one cannot add a prefix to a GI.A single-judge bench of Delhi High Court in July last year held that the GI for Pisco registered in favour of Peru in India be classified as ‘Peruvian Pisco’ and the one registered in favour of Chile be classified as ‘Chilean Pisco’. Peru then appealed against the order, and told the court that it is “least interested in being proprietor of the GI Peruvian Pisco”.“If that is so, this judgment would not stand in the way of Peru taking steps in accordance with law to surrender the said registration,” the court also said on Wednesday.In 2018, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board had overturned the Registrar of Trademarks’ decision in 2009 to grant GI to the two types of Piscos, Peruvian and Chilean, and had granted GI Pisco in favour of Peru. A Chilean association of Pisco producers, Asociación De Productores De Pisco A.G, had then moved the HC challenging the IPAB’s decision in 2020, and five years later, the single-judge bench of the high court asked for the modification of the GI in favour of Peru to ‘Peruvian Pisco’ instead.Peru claims that historical records indicate the origin of the liquor dating back to the 17th century at Ica, in southern Peru, and traced its origin to the Pisco Valley in Peru. However, Chilean producers had said that the region in question encompassed certain parts of the Peruvian coastline as well as the Atacama Region and the city of Coquimbo in Chile. They also said that Pisco, as a brand, was universally identified with Chile and the country has been producing Pisco for at least a century now.Story continues below this adThe division bench, while dismissing Peru’s appeal, said, “There can be no doubt that, if ‘Pisco’ was being used, since long, in Chile, for an alcoholic beverage, grant of the GI PISCO exclusively to Peru is likely to result in confusion amongst consumers…We are of the view that the allegation of misappropriation, or dishonesty, on the part of Chile, in adopting the name ‘Pisco’ for the alcoholic beverage which it admittedly manufactures and distils, is completely bereft of credible supportive evidence… If, therefore, Peru were to use the GI PISCO, the impression conveyed to the public is that the spirituous beverage Pisco is manufactured in Peru. That, however, is not the truth, as Pisco is manufactured not just in Peru, but also in Chile, though the two Piscos may be different in quality and characteristics.”Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:delhi high court