An ‘indication’ and a ‘geographical indication’ too, has to convey or suggest geographical origin of goods to which it applies. A name which does not suggest geographical origin of goods is not an ‘indication’ under The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 and cannot be a ‘geographical indication’ either. ‘Tirupati Laddoo’ qualifies as a GI whereas ‘Laddoo’ by itself would not, as a ‘Laddoo’ may be made anywhere including at our own High Court’s kitchen.

‘PISCO’ is manufactured not just in Peru, but also in Chile. Two may be different in quality and characteristics. Registrar in India would certainly be breaching Section 9(a) of GI Act if he were to allow Peru or Chile an absolute right to use ‘PISCO’ as a GI, as use by either is bound to result in confusion.

Peru, apparently, is least interested in being proprietor of ‘GI PERUVIAN PISCO’. We are clear, however, in our mind, Peru cannot be allowed registration of ‘GI PISCO’ as a standalone GI.

– Hon’ble Justice C. Hari Shankar of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Embassy of Peru v. Union of India, [LPA 577/2025] decided on 18.03.2026.