INTRODUCTION
In Kolhapur, sandal-making is an inherited craft that has been a part of the lives of the locals for generations. Many craftsmen here belong to families that have been a part of the leather sandal making process and have gained passed down techniques from their ancestors. They produce the Kolhapuri chappals, which are a durable and easy-to-wear footwear, using thick buffalo skin. These chappals are recognized for their simple one-toe designs. They mirror a major part of the region’s rich culture and history by their continuity over many decades.
On the other hand, across the world, the fashion industry operates differently in Milan. The production of apparels here are meant for red carpets and luxury stores. The fashion luxury brand, Prada, is based in this city and is known for its minimalist style, global influence and products often priced far beyond everyday market rates.
For artisans in Kolhapur, the recent controversy wasn’t simply about similar designs, it raised a deeper concern: how can something so closely tied to their heritage be recreated elsewhere without even mentioning its origin? For Indian policymakers and intellectual property experts, it was a reminder of the gap between laws on paper and the reality of enforcing them in a world where styles can travel across border in days.
The Kolhapuri chappal is more than footwear, it’s a craft with centuries of history and a strong link to the identity of Maharashtra and Karnataka. Recognized with a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in July 2019, it has legal acknowledgement as a product uniquely tied to its place of origin.
That’s why, in mid-2025, when Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 collection at Milan Fashion Week featured sandals that looked very much like Kolhapuris-open-toe designs- but described them simply as “leather sandals” and priced them at around Rupees 1.2 Lakh (about $800). This stirred up a negative reaction within the community in India. For many artisans in Kolhapur, it wasn’t just about a big brand copying a shoe design, but instead felt like a part of their identity had been lifted and sold at a luxury price without even giving credit from where it had come from. These sandals were the result of generations of hard work and cultural knowledge passed down through families.
Trade bodies like the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) reacted strongly, and so did lawmakers and public figures. What upset people the most was the absence of credit or any acknowledgement of the artisans behind the tradition. This raised a difficult question about how global fashion often borrows from local cultures without including the communities who shaped them.
As media coverage and public criticism grew louder on social platforms, Prada responded with a letter to MACCIA. In the letter the brand acknowledged the sandals’ Indian origin and clarified that the design was a part of a collection that was still in progress but not yet finalized. More importantly, the letter included a gesture of goodwill. Prada expressed openness to engaging with Indian artisans, not only to give credit where it was due, but also to explore potential collaborations based on mutual respect and cultural exchange.[1]
For many stakeholders, this step was seen to be taken in the right direction but not quite the resolution. While some saw it as a welcome invitation, others pointed out that giving recognition after public pressure isn’t the same as a voluntary invitation to form a collaboration.
In this blog, we will explore the case in detail and the legal grey area in the implementation and the scope of protection of the Geographical Indications Act.
THE LEGAL FRONTIER
A small group of five Pune-based advocates decided to take a stand. They filed a PIL in the Bombay High Court, arguing that Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection had crossed a line. The core of their case was the toe-ring Kolhapuri chappal which was protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act (GI Act) since 2009 and yet violated by a global fashion house. To the petitioners, Prada’s use was an unauthorized use of a GI and a misrepresentation of India’s cultural craft. Their demands in the PIL asked to stop commercialization of the design, a formal public apology, economic compensation for the artisans and a stronger legal recognition for the artisans. This wasn’t just about the Kolhapuri chappal, it was about setting a precedent.
When the matter reached the bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne, the focus of the case narrowed down to two main questions:
- Did the petitioners have the legal standing (locus standi) to bring this case?
- Was infringement of GI a matter to be filed as PIL under Article 226?[2]
The court ultimately dismissed the PIL[3] stating:
- No locus standi: The court held that the advocates had no locus standi to file a PIL in this matter. A case could only be brought by the registered proprietors of the Kolhapuri Chappal.[4] The GI tag was registered to Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) in 2009 in accordance to section 11 of the act. Section 11 states that an application for registration can be made by an Association of persons or producers or any organization established under law, which represents the interests of producers of the respective goods. Here the court noted that these organizations were the registered proprietors and section 21 of the Act gave them the right to bring a case of infringement against Prada.[5]
- Unsuitable format: The PIL format was not suitable for an infringement case under the GI Act, such matters must be brought under sections 21-22 through a civil suit by the GI proprietor and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench agreed that even though there is relevance to the interest of the artisan community, a PIL cannot be used to enforce statutory proprietary rights. Although, the court clarified that the dismissal of the PIL would not bar the registered proprietors from initiating a civil suit for the same.[6]
- No misuse of the word ‘Kolhapuri’- under the current GI law, copying the look without using the GI name is not technically an infringement. Prada never marketed its sandals as “Kolhapuris”, so the claim fell outside the law’s literal scope.
Although, however disheartening the dismissal was the registered proprietors were still allowed to make their case. But until they did, there was no legal step forward. The loophole here was that India’s GI law only protects the name and not the design. This means that a global fashion house can exactly mimic a craft, change the label and escape the legalities in doing so. Further, another problem came to light. The artisans are not directly the proprietors of the GI. The registration of it is under the name of the state communities and thus, the artisans cannot fight the battle for themselves.
THE LEGAL GREY AREA
The literal law states that India’s GI Act is meant to shield handicrafts like the Kolhapuri Chappal from misuse. The law says that if a product’s name is tied to a specific place and its reputation depends on that origin, nobody outside that region can market it under that name without permission. But this is different in practice. This shield is narrow. It only protects the name and not the look. This means that even if Prada picked up the thick buffalo hide and the one-toe ring from the design, it did not use the word ‘Kolhapuri’ anywhere, which makes them safe from all the legalities.
The main problem lies here. The heart of a cultural product lies in its looks and not just the name. So, what Prada did was, even though morally incorrect, but they didn’t go against the law. Further, the GI protection given to goods in India is only limited within the Indian borders and does not extend internationally unless the name is registered in other countries as well.
In this case, for the artisans, the missing credit of their hard work, really stung. The slow erosion of their cultural identity is where cultural appropriation steps in. Cultural appropriation means taking away of cultural expressions without acknowledgement, often by those more powerful. Cultural appreciation on the other hand would have been the case if Prada had partnered with the artisans from the very beginning, ensuring the originality of the design and fair compensation to the rightful people.
CLOSING THE GAP
The Kolhapuri-Prada dispute highlights the structural weakness in India’s GI framework. Addressing this will require legal and institutional reforms that will give the artisan communities all over India more power to enforce their rights. Here are some of the reforms that could be implemented:
- The current GI law only protects the name of the product and not its style unless registered under the Designs Act. The GI act could be amended to include protection of the physical appearance of the product. This would prevent copies and mimics of the original product from escaping legal liability.
- GI rights are restricted to territory. Unless registered in foreign jurisdictions or covered under bilateral trade agreements, the protection does not extend to outside India. The government could push to register key GIs in major fashion and export markets which would make it harder for foreign brands to commit appropriation.
- Even when there is infringement, the lack of resources prevents proprietors from filing such cases. Proper funding, legal aid, etc. could give artisan communities confidence and the relevant help they need for pursuing their case.
A stronger and more inclusive GI would not only legally protect products like the Kolhapuri chappal but also safeguard the culture and income of the respective communities.
CONCLUSION
This case was an eye-opener for all. It reminded us that the law on paper means very little if there aren’t enough means to implement it. Even though, Prada eventually recognized the Indian inspiration for the product and expressed a willingness to collaborate, it only came after public criticism.
This incident became an unexpected opening for change. It showed the stakeholders that reforms are needed to strengthen the protection of a GI tagged product in global markets. This case was more than just the chappal, it was about protecting the identity, culture and hard work of the many artisans who spent their lives crafting the product. If the law and cultural exchange can be aligned, these cases would gain more recognition and share success.
[1] Yashraj Sharma, Did Prada “Steal” Indian Sandal Designs without Giving Credit?, Al Jazeera (July 1, 2025), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/1/why-is-prada-caught-in-a-sandal-scandal-in-india.
[2] “Bombay High Court dismisses PIL in Kolhapuri Chappal GI violation case against PRADA; Upholds proper statutory remedies,” SCC Times, July 19, 2025, https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/07/19/bom-hc-kolhapuri-chappal-gi-violation-prada-dismissed.
[3] Swati Gandhi, HC Dismisses PIL Against Prada for Unauthorised Use of Kolhapuri Chappal, Business Standard (July 16, 2025), https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-kolhapuri-chappal-row-prada-milan-fashion-week-gi-good-125071600675_1.html.
[4] Bombay HC dismisses PIL by lawyers against ‘unauthorised use’ of Kolhapuri chappal by Prada, says affected parties can file suit, The Indian Express (updated July 16, 2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/kolhapuri-chappal-row-hc-dismisses-pil-prada-petitioners-sue-10129699.
[5] Supra 2
[6] Ibid
Authored by: Ms. Dimple Aswani
Ms. Dimple Aswani is a penultimate year BBA LLB student at UPES, Dehradun. Deeply intrigued by the field of Intellectual Property Law, She finds herself particularly inclined towards fashion law. She is constantly looking for ways to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and the practical world, whether it is through writing legal articles or internships. She is open to interacting with professionals and peers to share knowledge and gain a new perspective.
Leave a Reply