A model wearing brown leather sandals closely resembling Indian Kolhapuri Chappals, with a Prada logo above the text: “International Ultra-luxury brand ‘Prada’ copies the design of GI Registration protected Indian Kolhapuri Chappals.”

IS PRADA GUILTY OF CULTURAL APPROPRIATION? THE KOLHAPURI CHAPPAL CONTROVERSY

INTRODUCTION

A very recent controversy has been raised on Prada rebranding the Kolhapuri chappal. The controversy is hyped because of the adoption of Indian traditional and cultural items such as clothes and footwear without any credit or recognition to the culture and crafts of India. For instance, the Indian Jhola was hyped as “Indian souvenir tote”, dupattas as “Scandinavian scarves”, and lehengas as “maxi skirts”; the people are enraged by such cultural theft.[1] 

In the matter of Prada, the Kolhapuri chappal has a very high reputation and recognition as it is deeply associated with the cultural heritage of India, which is why these chappals also have GI protection. On the same account, a PIL is filed by the advocates against such infringement.

Kolhapuri Chappals’ GI Recognition

A Geographical Indication (GI) tag is a part of Intellectual Property Rights, which signifies the origin of a product or its association with a geographical location. These tags protect the crafts, cultural heritage, and local products, and are given to products whose quality or reputation is directly associated with any specific geographical location, or whose unique characteristics exist due to any place. Its protection extends to 10 years. Under section 11 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, any person, producer, organisation, or authority can file for the registration of a product for GI recognition.

In regard to the Kolhapuri chappals, it is known for their unique handcrafted designs and techniques. The existence of these chappals is traced back to the 13th century, and widely recognised during the 18th century as Kolhapuri chappals in Maharashtra. These chappals are culturally rooted and share their history with royal fashion. It gained the GI tag in 2018 certification date of 11/12/2018 for the artisans of the states Karnataka and Maharashtra, thereby restricting the use of the name Kolhapuri only for the authorised artisans.

The product is linked to the artisans of a specific region that includes Kohlapur, Satara, Solapur, and Sangli situated in Maharashtra, and Dharwad, Bagalkot, and Belgaum of Karnataka.[2] At present, the GI registration of the Kholapuri Chappal is granted to two main organisations, Sant. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) of Maharashtra and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) of Karnataka. 

Prada Controversy 

The luxury fashion brand, Prada, has launched a sandal named “toe-ring sandals” in their spring collection, Prada Men’s 2026 Fashion Show, which is very similar to the Indian GI-protected Kolhapuri chappals. there is no recognition or acknowledgement attributed to indian artisans and culture. This raised the controversy in relation to the adoption of cultural and traditional items of any country by the luxury brands without acknowledgment or recognition of their origin and the artisans.

These brands rebrand the traditional items of different countries by giving them fancy names such as “toe-ring sandals” and advertise them as their original products, and gain a huge profit. The same has been done in this case; these chappals are priced at 1.2 lakhs, whereas in India, these chappals are sold for around 1000 rupees. 

On this matter, a PIL has been filed against the brand. After such PIL, Prada acknowledged the connection of their sandals to the Kolhapuri chappals of India, stating that the inspiration has been derived from the Indian chappals and recognized the Indian craftsmanship.[3]

PIL against the Brand, Prada

With the heightened controversy, a PIL has been filed in the Bombay High Court against the luxury fashion brand, Prada, alleging the violation of intellectual property rights on the introduction of “toe-ring sandals” by the brand, which are deceptively similar to the famous Kolhapuri chappals. the chappals are GI-protected in India, and the brand used them without any recognition of the culture and origin. 

Arguments of petitioners

The petition contends that the action of Prada infringed Article 21, which includes the right to livelihood and cultural identity, the right to conserve cultural heritage under Article 29(1), and the state’s duty to protect the economic interests of the weaker section of society under Article 46. It further argued that if Prada is permitted to these sandals, then it will cause heavy loss to Indian artisans and will destroy its geographical importance. Such use amounts to infringement of the rights of the GI-authorised user.

Therefore, the petition demands collaboration with GI-recognized artists with appropriate guidelines, financial damages reparation for the reputational and economic loss, and a public apology.[4] . It is also prayed that comprehensive, long-term guidelines for collaboration and licensing when GI Products are used by international brands, along with the constitution of a committee for the protection of GI products in the international markets.

Arguments of Prada Group & ors. (respondents)

Whereas the respondents, which include the Prada group, contended that the GI tag for the Kohlapuri chappals was given to two main applicants, that is, LIDCOM and LIDKAR, and under Section 21 of the GI Act, only an authorized person can file a suit for infringement as per the provided mechanism in Section 22, and here, neither of them had filed the petition nor they are petitioners in the PIL. 

Decision of the Court

In the case’s first hearing, the Bombay High Court listened to the contentions of both sides and found that the petitioners are neither a registered association of the shoe manufacturers nor an impacted party. It is the LIDCOM and LIDKAR who are the registered proprietors of the GI product and are empowered enough to protect their rights by bringing actions against the fashion brand, Prada, if they find any such infringement.

In contrast, the PIL is meant for matters that concern the interests of a large number of people, generally incapable of protecting themselves or bringing legal actions, referring to the case Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Versus. State of Rajasthan and others[5] andBALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India[6], in which the Supreme Court held that PIL must address issues affecting large sections of society, particularly the disadvantaged, or seek judicial intervention to protect human rights, democratic institutions, or the environment.

Hence, the court held that this matter lacks locus standi and does not involve any public interest. Moreover, this matter requires leading of evidence as it involves questions of fact; therefore, it cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the authorised users can file the suit in accordance with law.

Conclusion

The Prada-Kolhapuri chappal debate highlights how urgently India’s GI protections need to be strengthened and recognised internationally. The incident has brought attention to the uncredited usage of culturally significant products even though the Bombay High Court dismissed the PIL for lack of locus standi. It emphasises how important it is to have cooperative structures, licensing policies, and international awareness in order to safeguard the rights and means of subsistence of traditional craftspeople. In order to protect cultural heritage and guarantee equitable economic opportunities for indigenous craft communities, it will be crucial to empower registered GI holders and promote moral behaviour in the fashion sector going forward.

Author: Akshaya Shankhwar, 3rd year, NUSRL, Ranchi

[1] Kolhapuri Sandals Rebranded by Prada at Rs 1.2 Lakh: Cultural Theft Outcry, Deccan Herald, https://www.deccanherald.com/india/maharashtra/kolhapuris-get-prada-makeover-at-rs-12-lakh-wheres-the-credit-fume-activists-3607671 (last visited Jul. 17, 2025).

[2] THE HISTORY OF KOLHAPURI CHAPPAL, Vhaan Ethnic Craft, https://vhaan.in/blogs/posts/history-of-kolhapuri-chappal (last visited Jul. 17, 2025).

[3] ‘Sandals Featured Are Still at Design Stage’: Prada Breaks Silence on Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy, The Indian Express (Jun. 28, 2025), https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/fashion/prada-finally-breaks-their-silence-on-kolhapuri-chappal-controversy-10093791/.

[4] UGI USER, Kolhapuri Sandals: GI Protection & Cultural Rights, Universal Group Of Institutions (Jul. 5, 2025), https://universalinstitutions.com/kolhapuri-sandals-gi-protection-cultural-rights/.

[5] Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti Versus. State of Rajasthan and others, (2014) 5 SCC 530.

[6] BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India, (2002) 2 SCC 333.

Link to similar articles: https://jpassociates.co.in/captain-cool-trademark/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share this post

Disclaimer & Confirmation

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to solicit work and advertise. By clicking on the “I Agree” below, the user acknowledges the following:

  • There has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from us or any of our members to solicit any work through this website;
  • The user wishes to gain more information about us for his/her own information and use;
  • The information about us is provided to the user only on his/her specific request and any information obtained or materials downloaded from this website is completely at the user’s volition and any transmission, receipt or use of the information obtained from this website site would not create any lawyer-client relationship.

The information provided on this website is solely available at user’s own request for informational purposes only and it should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertisement. We are not liable for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website. In cases where the user has any legal issues, he/she in all cases must seek independent legal advice.