Shaking Up the Dictionary: How Peru Won the Trademark Battle for Pisco Down Under

Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791

If you’ve ever enjoyed a Pisco Sour, you might not have considered the intense geopolitical and legal battles brewing behind the bar. However, in a landmark intellectual property decision handed down by the Federal Court of Australia earlier this year, the spirit's geographic origins were put under the legal microscope.

In Republic of Peru (Peruvian State) v Registrar of Trade Marks [2026] FCA 791, handed down by Justice Burley on June 23, 2026, the Court delivered a massive victory for geographical indications and national branding. The Republic of Peru successfully overturned an initial refusal by the Australian Trade Marks Office (TMO), winning the right to register "PISCO" as a Certification Trade Mark in Australia.  

Here is a breakdown of the case, why the dictionary doesn't always have the last word, and what brand owners need to know about protecting geographic origins.

The Background: Standard vs. Certification Trade Marks

To understand the dispute, we first have to understand what Peru was actually applying for. On May 1, 2019, the Republic of Peru applied to register the word mark PISCO as a Certification Trade Mark for "alcoholic beverages (except beer)" in Class 33.  

Unlike a standard trade mark, which acts as a badge of origin for a single business (think the Nike swoosh or the Coca-Cola logo), a Certification Trade Mark is a collective right. It guarantees that a product meets specific standards relating to quality, ingredients, or—crucially in this case—geographic origin. To get one, the applicant must file a strict set of Certification Rules. Peru’s rules were simple: PISCO is a recognized Denomination of Origin belonging to Peru.  

However, the TMO rejected the application under section 177 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth). The Registrar argued that "pisco" was not inherently adapted to distinguish Peruvian goods because Australian consumers understood it more broadly as a grape brandy originating from both Peru and Chile. Consequently, the TMO believed other traders (specifically Chilean producers) would have a legitimate need to use the word.  

Peru appealed the decision to the Federal Court.  

The Decision: What Does "Pisco" Actually Mean?

In the Federal Court, the case came down to consumer perception: what is the ordinary signification of the word "PISCO" to everyday Australian consumers?  

The Battle of the Dictionary

To support its refusal, the Registrar leaned heavily on the Macquarie Dictionary, which defined "pisco" as originating from both Peru and Chile. In a brilliant litigation move, Peru subpoenaed the dictionary’s publishers. The subpoenaed materials revealed that the dictionary's sources for the entry likely included general internet searches that were not specifically tied to how the word was used or understood locally in Australia.  

Justice Burley found that dictionary definitions are not definitively binding. Because the Macquarie entry could not be reliably tied to the ordinary meaning held by Australian consumers, it was of limited use.  

The Weight of Evidence

Instead, the Court was persuaded by Peru’s overwhelming commercial and historical evidence:  

• A 450-year history of pisco production in Peru's specific "Pisco" region.  

  
  

• Consistent sales and promotional activities in Australia since 2005, deeply linking the drink to Peruvian culture.  

  
  

• Over 650,000 bottles of PISCO exported to Australia over 14 years, all carrying a Denomination of Origin certificate confirming their Peruvian roots.  

  
  

Ultimately, Justice Burley concluded that to the ordinary Australian consumer, PISCO indicates a location or region of origin in Peru from which the beverage is made. The Court set aside the Registrar's decision and allowed the mark to proceed to acceptance.  

Key Takeaways for Brand Owners and Industry Groups

1. The Presumption of Registrability Applies

This was a historic case, marking the first time the registrability of certification marks was considered at the federal level in Australia. Justice Burley confirmed that the "presumption of registrability"—which means a mark should be accepted unless there is concrete evidence it shouldn't be—applies to Certification Trade Marks just as it does to standard ones.  

2. Dictionaries Don't Dictate the Market

Trade mark disputes are decided by actual consumer understanding in the marketplace, not just by what is written in a reference book. As Peru successfully demonstrated, dictionary definitions can be challenged, unpacked, and defeated if they don't reflect real-world local usage.  

3. Geographic Branding is a Massive Asset

Whether you are dealing with French Champagne, Scottish Whisky, or Peruvian Pisco, the commercial value of a product's origin is immense. Establishing and policing a robust regulatory framework in the country of origin pays dividends when seeking IP protection abroad.  

The Bottom Line

Republic of Peru v Registrar of Trade Marks is a fascinating intersection of international trade, cultural heritage, and intellectual property. For Peru, it is a sweet victory that protects the integrity of its national spirit. For IP professionals and brand owners, it provides a much-needed roadmap for the enforcement of geographical indications and the strategic use of Certification Trade Marks.  

If you require help with registering a trade mark, please do not hesitate to contact us at mail@stellariplaw.com.