This case arose when Chilean PISCO producers approached the Delhi High Court challenging the IPAB's order, which had upheld the GI tag of "PISCO" as accorded to Peruvian PISCO by the Registrar. It was identified that both the Chilean and the Peruvian PISCO qualify as homonymous GIs under Sections 9 and 10 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, due to their distinct characteristics and historical origins. The Court held that by granting Peruvian PISCO the exclusive rights over the GI of “PISCO”, it has failed to provide the Chilean PISCO with its due recognition and equitable treatment. This reasoning was consistent with international principles of GI, as under Article 22.4 of the TRIPS Agreement, and earlier judgements, such as in the case of Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. The term “PISCO” without qualifying prefixes would mislead and confuse the consumers; thus, the Registrar was directed to register both varieties of PISCO under different GI tags. ​