EMBASSY OF PERU vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15 January 2026 Pronounced on: 18 March 2026 + LPA 577/2025 & CM APPL. 57234-39/2025 EMBASSY OF PERU .....Appellant Through: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Advs. with Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Jithin M. George, Mr. R. Abhishek and Mr. B. Sidhi Pramodh Rayudu, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Aditya Verma, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth, Mr. Rigved Prasad and Ms. Vanshika Singh, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA JUDGMENT % 18.03.2026 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. If judgments could be given subtitles, we could subtitle this, with due apologies to Dickens, “A Tale of Two Countries”. A. The lis Signature Not Verified LPA 577/2025 Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 46 KUMAR Signing Date:18.03.2026 15:34:50 2. The South American nation of Peru, through its Embassy in New Delhi, filed an application under Section 11(1)1 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 19992, for registration of the Geographical Indication3 PISCO, in relation to an alcoholic beverage manufactured in Peru. The Asociacion De Productores De Pisco A.G.4 opposed the application. By order dated 3 July 2009, the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks allowed the registration of the GI “PERUVIAN PISCO” in favour of Peru. 3. The Embassy of Peru5 appealed to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board6, praying that the order dated 3 July 2009 of the Assistant Registrar be quashed, Peru’s application for registration of the GI PISCO (without any “Peruvian” prefix) be allowed and the Opposition filed by ADP to the application be dismissed. 4. The IPAB, by order dated 29 November 2018, allowed