Entrepreneur Wins Pedro Piscal Trademark Dispute Against Pedro Pascal

The legal battle over the trademark “Pedro Piscal” has come to an end. Representatives for globally recognized actor José Pedro Balmaceda Pascal, known as Pedro Pascal, have formally withdrawn a nullity lawsuit against Chilean entrepreneur David Herrera.

This decision ensures that Herrera retains the rights to his pisco brand. While the case did not conclude with a definitive court ruling against the actor, the withdrawal of the lawsuit allows the brand to maintain its legal validity.

From a Social Gathering to a Legal Dispute

The concept for “Pedro Piscal” originated in late 2022 during a year-end party. While sharing a traditional “piscola” with friends and family, David Herrera conceived the name as a playful wordplay.

Herrera registered the brand with the National Institute of Industrial Property (Inapi) in June 2023. By August of that year, he was declared the owner of the “Pisco Pedro Piscal” mark for a period of 10 years, covering classes 33 for grape brandy and 35 for business administration.

Following the registration, Herrera established a strategic alliance with Pisquera Alba in the Elqui Valley to develop production and enhance product quality.

Did You Know? Before filing the lawsuit, the actor’s legal representatives offered Herrera $2,000 (approximately two million Chilean pesos) to acquire the brand and the domain pedro-piscal.cl, an offer that was rejected.

The Legal Conflict and Strategic Pivot

The dispute escalated in October 2023 when Pascal’s lawyers requested the transfer of digital domains to avoid litigation. When Herrera refused, the law firm Silva filed a lawsuit in March 2024 to annul the registration.

The lawsuit alleged that the brand sought to commercially exploit the actor’s fame and could cause consumer confusion. Herrera maintained that the name was a joke and not intended to deceive the public or imply an inspiration from the actor.

The tide turned when Herrera’s legal team, Ármate Abogados, shifted from a defensive posture to an offensive strategy. Lead attorney Ángel Labra stated that instead of merely answering the lawsuit, they sought to bring the actor himself into the proceedings.

Expert Insight: Samantha Carter notes that this case highlights the volatility of intellectual property disputes when celebrity likeness is involved. The tactical decision to force a personal appearance shifted the burden of proof, demonstrating how procedural maneuvers can be as decisive as the merits of the trademark claim itself.

The Turning Point: Article 394

The defense requested that Pedro Pascal be summoned to testify through a process known as “absolución de posiciones.” Despite being summoned on two separate occasions, the actor did not appear.

This Trademark Lawsuit Between Pedro Pascal and a Brandy Brand Is Insane

the defense requested the application of Article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Inapi granted this request, issuing a resolution that held the actor as “confeso” regarding the facts presented by the entrepreneur’s defense.

Three days after this resolution, the lawyers for Pedro Pascal withdrew their lawsuit, effectively ending the litigation.

Future Outlook for Pedro Piscal

With the legal uncertainty removed, David Herrera holds the brand rights until 2033. This outcome may allow him to reactivate the business project, which had been frozen for nearly two years.

The entrepreneur could now move forward with his production plans and market entry, viewing the victory as a validation of his professional efforts and future.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who owns the “Pedro Piscal” brand?
The brand is owned by Chilean entrepreneur David Herrera, who registered it in June 2023.

Why did Pedro Pascal’s lawyers file a lawsuit?
The lawsuit aimed to annul the brand registration based on the argument that it exploited the actor’s fame and could confuse consumers.

How was the legal dispute finally resolved?
The dispute ended when the actor’s lawyers withdrew the lawsuit after Inapi declared the actor “confeso” due to his failure to appear for testimony.

Do you believe a play on words is enough to justify a trademark dispute with a global celebrity?