Of Couture and Tradition: The Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy and the IPR Dilemma

Introduction

During June 2025, Milan Fashion Week, luxury Italian brand Prada launched an expensive line of leather shoes, which produced items effectively the same as the made in India, traditional Kolhapuri chappal. This launch elicited cries of cultural appropriation and intellectual property violation in India. It was not only a matter of similar designs, but also that Prada not only did not consult with the artisans, who have been engaged in this trade for centuries, it did not even consult with their cultural heritage. Then, after much backlash from media interest, a Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court that included a number of other laws, including the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

This case has sparked conversations regarding cultural appropriation in the general sense, the economic precariousness of Indian artisan communities, and whether there can be a relationship with international IP protection. There are multiple layers of discussion surrounding recognition and autonomy of traditional knowledge and design; there is a conflict between large fashion brands and local cultural artisans that goes beyond a mere 'fashion moment.' This brings up important questions regarding how the law in relation to IP may or may not evolve to provide some level of protection for salient aspects of local cultural heritage within an economically interconnected and globalized world.

Kolhapuri Chappals: A Cultural and Legal Heritage

Kolhapuri chappals are custom leather sandals that, while artisan-produced in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, and areas of Karnataka, are meant to exemplify variety, artistry, and longevity. The sandals are made in the traditional way in communities with artisan skills, in a process involving bona fide tanning and hand-stitching, that has occurred for generations. Kolhapuri chappals have now also become a modern symbol of 'artisan pride' for India.

In 2019, Kolhapuri chappals received a geographical indication (GI) label under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The GI was jointly given for artisans in both Karnataka and Maharashtra. A GI establishes the link between reputation and quality of a product, and knowledge of geographical origin; although the product itself acknowledges the place of origin of Kolhapuri chappals & their unique qualities.

Legal Action: The PIL and the Accusations

On the 2nd of July 2025, an advocate named Ganesh S. Hingmire (who works in IP issues), filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petition with the Bombay High Court. The PIL claimed that under the GI mandate, the shape of the sandals by Prada offended the GI rights to Kolhapuri chappals, and Prada was included as a respondent. The litigation took several

• The footwear in question is permanently ordered not to be offered for sale.

• An apology from Prada for not indicating who made the boots.

• An award to the registered GI holders of the Kolhapuri chappals.

• Prada and the Kolhapuri artisan communities will be required to work together under the monitoring of the court.

Although the PIL is rooted in the GI Act, it refers to broader factors addressing cultural rights, ethical fashion, and the concept of unjust enrichment. It seeks to be the precedent on whether existing law can be interpreted to address international fashion that commodifies traditional knowledge.

Geographical Indications and the Law

A legislative measure to protect goods originating from a geographical area, including goods that may have certain characteristics or a reputation attributed to a geographical origin, is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Pertinent sections are as follows:

• Section 2(e) defines a geographical indication (GI) as a mark indicating that the goods are from a geography; the recognised quality or reputation for the goods must exist and is considered due to that geographical origin.

• Section 21 identifies the infringement of a registered geographical indication, particularly concerning the use of the mark or which creates a false impression, or unfairly uses it.

• Section 22 protects against copiers, deception, and unfair use.

• Section 24 gives protection against trademark registration by unauthorized persons.

While GI law in India does not prevent visual style, aesthetics, or design aspects from being copied, it does prevent the misuse of names or labels. "Kolhapuri chappal" is not the name used for Prada, so it may be a little bit problematic to prove direct GI infringement as alleged within the current framework of the law. Advocates argue that the law must change not only to not allow names to be abused, but also to prevent the 'theft' of the aesthetics and cultural meanings of GI-related goods. The PIL could work as a test case for a more expansive reading of GI protections.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

Traditional Knowledge and Cultural IP: The Absence of a Framework

The dispute additionally emphasizes the existing lack of a comprehensive legal framework in India to protect traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) and traditional knowledge (TK). India has claimed the protection of TK and TCEs at a number of international forums, such as the WIPO; however, it still has incomplete domestic legislation.

Because Kolhapuri chappals are rooted in traditional artisanal practices, they would clearly constitute a TCE under international law. However, they are at risk of appropriation in the absence of some kind of legal statutes (albeit the GI-Act does provide some protection), but the substantial issues of benefit-sharing as well as cultural misrepresentation cannot be addressed. Those scholars and practitioners who have advocated for sui generis legislation to protect TCEs have repeatedly pointed to this legal vacuum; now, the Prada event has highlighted the importance of such legislation.

Passing Off under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act

There is a helpful legal remedy through the passing-off principle found within S.27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, apart from GI protections. This section makes clear that the remedy of passing off is still available, although there cannot be a trademark infringement claim for an unregistered trademark.

Passing off is a tool for preventing others from abusing or misrepresenting the goodwill attached to a product or brand. In order to succeed in a passing off action, an aggrieved party must demonstrate three essential elements:

1. Goodwill: The product (Kolhapuri chappals) is a well-known and respected product.

2. Misrepresentation: The sandals look similar to the Kolhapuri sandals, and customers may mistakenly think Indian artisans are affiliated, inspired, or endorse the sandals.

3. Harm: Taking attention and money away from the original producers (i.e., Indian artisan communities), such deception harms reputational and economic interests.

While it is true that Prada never used the term "Kolhapuri," the obvious similarity in visual representation and the lack of recognition of the source could lead to mistaken identity and could lead to passing off. What the passing off doctrine is protecting against is the use of a visual identity without recognition (or payment).

Ethical Fashion and Corporate Accountability

The controversy extends well beyond legal questions and leads us to a larger conversation about ethical fashion. With sustainability and fair trade taking the world by storm, consumers expect global fashion brands to adopt ethical guidelines in how they source materials and design clothing. In this instance, audiences assumed that Prada was out of step with these evolving expectations when they appropriated the design of Kolhapuri artisans.

Following the backlash, Prada offered the following statement: "The design was inspired by traditional Indian shoes, and Prada is open to discussions with artisan groups." However, as of the writing of this document, no apology has been issued and no steps have been made toward cooperation.

Ultimately, this scenario encapsulates the power of business responsibility. When a vulnerable community's cultural rights and livelihoods are involved, voluntary conduct should be made mandatory at law. In this sense, this case provides us with a platform to call for statutory frameworks that will protect traditional knowledge and ensure that communities that safeguard this knowledge receive consideration of the benefits of global exposure, including the potential for royalty-sharing, legal partnerships, or capacity-building programs.

Conclusion

A substantial discussion regarding the relationship between fashion, intellectual property, and cultural justice has been sparked by the Prada-Kolhapuri controversy. It shows how inadequate the legal systems in place now are to completely safeguard customary cultural expressions and stop their exploitation in a globalized economy. In an effort to assert cultural rights in the IP sphere and broaden the GI Act's interpretive parameters, the Bombay High Court is currently considering a PIL. Regardless of its success, it has already sparked a much-needed discussion about ethical fashion and the legalization of traditional knowledge.

India needs to think about passing comprehensive laws on cultural, intellectual property, and traditional knowledge in the future. The establishment of legally binding standards that hold multinational firms responsible for cultural appropriation must be pursued globally. The real cost of inspiration in the fashion industry, where trends come and go but the effects last, should include recognition, cooperation, and payment. Only then will we be able to guarantee that culture is honored with dignity and equity rather than being commercialized.

Author:  Tanishka Bhaskar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  

REFERENCES

§  Devina Gupta, ‘Do they have gold in them?': The Indian artisans up in arms over Prada's sandals, BBC News (Jul. 9, 5:45 PM), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly801q2pw7o.

§  Anupreeta Das, The Prada Sandal That Led to Cries of Cultural Theft in India, The New York Times (Jul. 9, 4:39 PM), https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/30/world/asia/india-prada-sandal.html