Introduction
The age-old representation of history, culture, and craftsmanship, the iconic ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’ is now a global luxury. The luxury brand ‘PRADA’ showcased its men’s collection for spring/ summer 2026 in Milan, wherein 7 out of 56 looks were seen wearing tan leather chappals similar to Kolhapuri chappals. This has raised a controversy among Indians, as there was no mention of the communities or inspiration behind these chappals. Moreover, these pieces are priced at Rs. 1.16 lakhs. The Kolhapuri Chappal received a GI tag in 2019, Maharashtra and Karnataka were given this tag jointly (8 districts). This means that the term “Kolhapuri” can be applied to chappals produced in the designated districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka. This gives legal protection to artisans and also gives clarity to the consumers regarding the origin and authenticity of the product.
Is there a GI infringement?
Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, an infringement occurs if a product falsely uses the GI tag or misleads the consumers. PRADA has neither used the term ‘Kolhapuri’ for their sandals nor claimed any connection with Indian origin Kolhapuri. Although@there@isn’t any explicit legal infringement, the design might evoke authenticity. As of yet, there is no-proof of passing off, misrepresentation, or customer confusion.
Names associated with particular regions or methods of production are protected by GI, not the look. The global GI regime’s shortcomings are brought to light by this case. Firstly, a GI tag is territorial in nature. It means registration in India does not give automatic protection in other countries. Hence, enforcement abroad requires India to have bilateral treaties. Secondly, GI law does not protect the look or craft pattern unless explicitly registered under design law. So, brands can imitate designs while avoiding the GI-protected name. The current GI regime doesn’t prevent global brands from aesthetically borrowing from traditional designs as long as they avoid name misuse. This creates a legal gray zone for cultural appropriation without accountability.
Therefore, while PRADA’s design may be ethically questionable, it remains legally permissible under current GI frameworks. The Kolhapuri chappal case shows how GI protection, though intended to safeguard heritage, can fall short in a globalized fashion economy unless international legal reforms or cultural diplomacy evolve to close these gaps.
Design inspiration or cultural misuse?
The striking resemblance between traditional Kolhapuri Chappals and the ones seen on the PRADA ramp walk caught the eye of Indian fashion observers. Although PRADA has not used the term ‘Kolhapuri’ anywhere, this raises a question of debate in global fashion: when does inspiration become imitation? This is not the first instance where luxury brands have imitated or borrowed traditional or indigenous designs without credit or acknowledgement. For example, the Scandinavian scarf, which is the Indian dupatta in disguise. There is a difference between appreciating artisanal design and appropriating it. It becomes an issue when brands make profit from such artisanal or cultural design without giving due credit or mentioning the origin. This becomes a misuse of cultural design where the culture is diluted, communities remain invisible, and over time consumers or the public may start associating the design with the brand rather than the community that created it. Kolhapuri Chappals represent generations of artisanal labor, cultural symbolism, and regional identity—yet no recognition or benefit flows back to their makers when such designs are commercialized without credit. This raises an important question: shouldn’t global brands that draw inspiration from cultural heritage actively engage with the source communities? There are precedents—Louis Vuitton was criticized for using Bastar tribal art without acknowledgment, while Dior faced backlash over uncredited Madhubani motifs. Ethically, appreciation must go beyond aesthetics to include collaboration, fair compensation, and storytelling that honors origin. Otherwise, it veers into exploitation masked as design.
Conclusion
However, since Prada did not use the term “Kolhapuri” or assert Indian origin, it might not have legally violated India’s GI. It is impossible to overlook the striking resemblance to the traditional Indian footwear. The territorial character of GI protection, in particular, highlights the shortcomings of the existing intellectual property laws. Even though the Kolhapuri chappal was granted GI status in India in 2019, this protection does not automatically carry over to other countries unless bilateral treaties or more comprehensive international intellectual property agreements like TRIPS are in place. Furthermore, GI law does not protect aesthetic elements unless they are specifically protected under design legislation, so the design and craft style of these chappals are still at risk. More significantly, this problem highlights the global fashion industry’s ethical blind spot. When brands use traditional cultures without paying credit, they risk reducing centuries of craftsmanship to trendy trends. Artists remain economically and socially excluded from the admiration and value created since these cultural works are associated with their identities and means of subsistence. A power imbalance results from the monetization of heritage by people who neither own it nor care about its preservation because of a lack of collaboration or acknowledgment.
The way forward lies in rethinking how the global fashion industry engages with indigenous and artisanal cultures. Ethical fashion is not only about sustainable materials, it is also about cultural sustainability. Designers and labels must go beyond aesthetic borrowing and move toward co-creation, respectful acknowledgment, and equitable sharing of value. Kolhapuri chappals are not just footwear, they are a symbol of India’s living heritage. The world must begin to ask not just what we wear, but whose stories we wear and whether those stories are being honored or erased.
Authored by: Ms. Komal Jain
Ms. Komal Jain is a Law graduate from Institute of Law Nirma University with a specialization in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). Passionate about the evolving landscape of IP law, She shares insights, analysis, and commentary on key legal developments and contemporary issues in the field. Also, She sets to pursue her Master’s degree at King’s College London, further deepening her expertise in this domain.
Leave a Reply