When heritage walks a foreign ramp without due credit

Introduction : In June 2025, Prada models showcased its spring/summer collection in Milan. When the photos and videos of the event were released in July, a hand-stitched leather sandal with a distinctive interlaced toe strap drew popular attention as they looked exactly like “Kolhapuri Chappals”, a cultural heritage being carried by Indian Artisans for centuries. These exhibitions did not even acknowledge the Kolhapuri artisans as the source of the design. This appears as an attempt of cultural misappropriation against Indian Artisans who have been carrying the footwear as part of their identity from the 12^th Century.

It was yet another instance of when foreign commercial giants with their influence attempted to take away the identity of economically weaker artisans without any consequences. However, this time Prada witnessed a huge public unrest as soon as the photos and videos went viral on different social media platforms. Finally, after a lot of backlash Prada recognised that the footwear designs were inspired by traditional Indian footwear.

This incident raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of intellectual property laws in India. The “Kolhapuri Chappal” under question received geographical indication tag under the Geographical Indications Act, 1999 (GI Act) in 2019. This was supposed to protect not just the name but the geographical origin and associated reputation of goods. It indicates a primary inadequacy in the statute itself. As Prada did not use the name “kolhapuri” the GI tag could do nothing to protect or safeguard the intellectual property rights of traditional artisans against foreign entities. This left the Indian artisans with no legal remedy but only public outrage to depend on. 

Geographical Indications in India : Can it Protect Artisans Against Global Fashion Houses?

In an attempt to globalise intellectual property rights, the members of the World Trade Organisation including India signed an Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). In compliance with TRIPS, India enacted Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Act). Registration of a GI gives the registered proprietor and the authorised users the exclusive right to use the indications on the goods in which it is registered. These registered proprietors are mostly a producers’ association or state body that represents a number of individuals who are involved in the production of these products. The concept of GI gives legal protection to the cultural heritage associated with a specific geography. India is itself a country of craftmanship, agriculture and handicraft, intellectual property protection laws like the GI Act become a necessity. Today, there are 725 products registered under the Act. The number represents the vulnerability that these local products face due to hyper-globalisation.    

However, the act remains largely inadequate and limited in its scope when it comes to actual reputational protection of goods registered. The Section 22 of the GI Act requires use of the geographical indication in a way that misleads the public as to the origin of the goods. It does not mention any remedy in case there is no representation of the geographical origin of the product. The attempt of cultural misappropriation of Kolhapuri Chappals is an exploitation of this legislative gap. Prada in this case did not use the GI name of the product but only used visual imitation of it on a foreign land. The GI Act, a domestic legislation with the primary purpose of registration and better protection of registered goods, fails to work as a safety net for the “Kolhapuri Chappal”. It clearly requires major reform in its structure.

The Bombay High Court dismissal : A missed opportunity

A Public Interest Litigation was filed by six advocates led by Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire  who claimed to represent the artisans and the general public against Prada in the Bombay High Court in July 2025. It sought judicial intervention to restrain Prada from future commercialization of the sandals without securing authorisation from registered proprietors of kolhapuri chappal. But the court denied admissibility of the petition under Article 226 and suggested that only registered proprietors could file a suit of infringement in the civil courts.

Denying the petition merely on the basis of locus standi raises serious concerns for the artisans. Most of the artisans who are involved in this work are not sufficiently aware and often lack resources required to stand before a court of law. It makes them dependent on the associations for such actions as the GI Act itself vests enforcement rights in them, and not individual artisans. It also signals that the court does not equate GI infringement to public interest violation. It may be interpreted as a weak enforcement mechanism of GI regulation. Such an interpretation may promote further infringement. 

With the High Court’s support, the PIL could have worked as a turning point of GI legislation in India. But it decided to choose a cautious path by dismissing the PIL and suggesting it did not prevent the registered proprietors from filing an infringement case. Even if dismissing the PIL might be legally defensible, it still looks like a lost opportunity. The High Court had the power to recognise the issue as one involving public interest and take Suo moto cognizance itself. This way it could have recognised the legislative vacuum and directed the legislature to address it, through judicial intervention.

International GI protection law: Challenges and Comparison

The controversy about Kolhapuri Chappals is not an isolated event. It is a reflection that the International Law itself fails in providing adequate GI protection. TRIPS, the agreement that laid the foundation of India’s GI Act sets an inadequate standard. Article 22 obligates member states to prevent misleading use of geographical indications, but it anchors protection to misrepresentation of origin and does not include any liability in case of visual or design imitation.

The European Union has developed a much sound framework for GI protection. It extends beyond name misuse to also cover cases of evocation i.e., when a product’s shape, packaging, or appearance calls a protected product in mind, even without directly using its name. The CJEU confirmed that visual suggestion alone could constitute infringement. If India had an equivalent framework, Prada’s silence on the name would have not offered it any shelter and the imitation itself would have been enough to invite legal consequences.  France, which is home to Prada’s prime market, also protects traditional savoir-faire through its Cultural Heritage Code.   

On the other side, India’s GI Act, remains purely defensive and centred on name. The global trend in moving towards design evocation and cultural heritage as an independent basis of protection. India has not moved with the pace of the world and its price is being paid by Kolhapuri Artisans.

Beyond GI protection : Rethinking legal safeguards

This episode also exposes a truth that needs to be confronted. The current GI Act alone is too narrow to work as a shield against such violations. Some alternative legal frameworks deserve consideration.

First is design protection under the Design Act, 2000. The distinctive construction of Kolhapuri Chappals has been registered as a design. Prada’s visual imitation of interlaced toe strap, hand stitched leather sole would have constituted a direct infringement of Design Act, 2000 regardless of whether the name was used. The problem is that the Act requires proactive registration and places a 10- year ceiling on protection. Also it was not structurally developed to protect traditional crafts. Individual artisans are not permitted to register and associations rarely do.

Second is a strong standalone legislation that protects traditional knowledge and cultural expression. A country which is a goldmine of traditional and cultural knowledge clearly requires such a framework. Several other countries like Peru, New Zealand and even France that is home to Prada have enacted such frameworks. There have been discussions about such legislation but no such framework exists in India till date.

Conclusion: Protecting Artisans, not just indications

Ultimately, the Prada-Kolhapuri controversy is not just a story about some sandal. It is a reflection of how easily someone gets to profit from centuries of craft knowledge by leaving behind the actual backbone of that very craft. The current IP framework responds to misuse of names and has no response to theft of identity. 

Hyper-globalisation has created vulnerability that requires special attention. A foreign brand lifted an aesthetic, walked it down the Milan runway, and faced no legal consequences. A social-media outrage achieved what the law could not. This should be embarrassing.  

Reform is overdue. India needs either a meaningful amendment to the GI Act incorporating evocation-based protection, or a dedicated Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions legislation that treats craft heritage as a collective right worth defending and not merely registering.

The Kolhapuri artisans won the court of public opinion. They deserved to win in a court of law. Until the law catches up, the next Prada is already looking.

Author: Shradha in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to content@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney