This article has been co-authored with Shikhar Aggarwal, a lawyer based in Delhi.
The recently unveiled Prada Spring/Summer 2026 collection made headlines in India for all the wrong reasons. While “plagiarism” in fashion is not uncommon domestically and internationally, this instance brought focus to a GI-tagged product – the humble Kolhapuri Chappals. Traditionally handcrafted with a unique toe-loop design, Kolhapuri Chappals are sold by footwear shops across India for as low as Rs.100-200 per pair. They are produced in the Sholapur, Sangli, Kolhapur, and Satara districts of Maharashtra and the Dharwad, Belgaum, Bagalkot, and Bijapur districts of Karnataka. In 2018, Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation (LIDKAR) secured GI registration for Kolhapuri Chappals, as proprietors under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”). Today, there are over 900 authorised users of the Kolhapuri Chappal GI, who employ traditional techniques to produce them using bag-tanned/vegetable-dyed leather.
Although Prada has now acknowledged the Indian inspiration behind its sandal designs, this follows significant social media backlash alleging cultural appropriation and potential infringement of the Kolhapuri Chappal GI. Hence, we assess: one, whether/not an actionable claim for GI infringement against Prada stands; and two, the implications of this development on GI law and policy.
GI Act to the Rescue or Not?
Before we examine the scope, if any, for a legal action, let us evaluate the effects of GI registration under Chapter IV of the Act. Section 21(1)(b) grants authorised users of a GI (Section 17), the exclusive right to use such sign in relation to goods for which it is granted. As per Rule 56 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002, for registration as an authorised user, a producer has to submit an application to the Registrar in Form GI-3 along with a “Statement of Case”. This may be accompanied by a letter of consent from the GI’s registered proprietors, i.e. LIDCOM and LIDKAR here.
Therefore, one who is not an authorised GI user commits infringement under Section 22, by using it:
“(a)…by any means in the designations or presentation of goods that indicates or suggests that such goods originate in a geographical area other than the true place of origin of such goods in a manner which misleads the persons as to the geographical origin of such goods; or
(b) …in such manner which constitutes an act of unfair competition including passing off in respect of registered geographical indication…”.
1) Has Prada Committed Infringement?
The simple answer is no. Firstly, Prada has not used the “Kolhapuri Chappal” GI in its designation or presentation of the 2026 Summer Collection, to suggest/mislead people on the origin of Kolhapuri Chappals. In fact, it has acknowledged that the showcased products were inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear. This may be contrasted with the Scotch Whiskey Association’s suit against Oasis Distilleries, Adie Broswon Distilleries, and Malbros International in India, for infringing the “Scotch Whiskey” GI. While the Parties settled the matter, the Delhi HC prohibited the Respondents from selling whiskies produced in India, with the labels “Scotch”, “Scotch Whisky” or “Scotland”.
Secondly, following on the above, Prada has not infringed the exclusive right (Section 21) granted to authorised users of the “Kolhapuri Chappal” GI to use such indication in relation to the protected footwear. In other words, Prada, an entity that is not an authorised user under Section 17, is not claiming that its footwear collection includes “Kolhapuri Chappals”. To understand this better, let us look at Korakari. Based in Mhalunge, Korakari sells footwear branded as “Kolhapuri Chappals”. This is not infringement, because the company is registered as an authorised user under the name of “Divyam Leather Crafts”. Had Korakari branded its footwear as “Kolhapuri Chappals” without being an authorised user, the same would be GI infringement. Prada, however, has not undertaken such activity.
Lastly, we discuss “passing off”. In Tea Board, India v ITC Ltd. (2011), the Calcutta HC held that “passing off” under the GI Act has to be assessed in light of its meaning in Trademark law (referred to Marico Ltd). While there is an unflinching similarity in the goods presented by Prada and those produced by the humble Indian artisans, Prada has not branded its footwear as “Kolhapuri Chappals”, or any other name resembling the GI. The class of consumers, the mode of purchase, and other surrounding circumstances are drastically different for both of these goods. Hence, there is no finding of unfair competition under Section 22 either.
2) If Proprietors Still Undertake Legal Action, Would Jurisdictional Issues Play Spoilsport?
The answer is no again. Section 66(1)(a) of the GI Act provides that a suit for infringement may be filed in a court, not inferior to a “district court having jurisdiction” to try the suit. Sub-section (2) enables Plaintiffs to file such suit in a district court within whose local limits they actually and voluntarily resided, or carried out business, or worked for gain. Hence, for infringement of the Kolhapuri Chappal GI under Sections 66(1)(a) and 66(1)(b), LIDKAR and LIDCOM are not restricted from filing a suit before a Court within whose jurisdiction they are situated or carry out business (Bengaluru & Mumbai courts, respectively).
Implications for GI and IP Policy in India
GI tags were meant to protect the authenticity of products originating from specific areas, whilst promoting equitable socio-economic development. However, as remarked earlier on SpicyIP, Kolhapuri Chappals face the “proverbial threat of ‘Chinese imitation’”: traditional artisans are incapable of combating revenue losses, and market/reputational risks caused by loss of price competitiveness and quality, respectively.
A policy failure associated with GI tags is the collective amnesia that products attract after registration. Only some proprietors have the wherewithal to vociferously defend their GI, like the Tea Board. While the DPIIT has considered the use of logos to enable the identification of GI-registered products, such steps have no actual/potential efficacy in preventing infringement.
1) Is the GI Protection Relevant Against Cultural Appropriation?
This predicament of the Kolhapuri Chappals (and other GIs) reflects the pitfalls of the individual-centric philosophy underlying IP laws. Even when commercialised, their inadequacy in protecting collective rights is apparent from the absence of any trickle-down of benefits to small-scale artisans, as well as from cultural appropriation of traditional Indian knowledge (like yoga).
We see how even a sui generis GI regime is grossly insufficient in protecting anything except the use of a registered product’s name. Prada (and others like Dior) have strategically capitalised on legal loopholes – artisans have no right to monetary compensation, and giving credit suffices from an ethical perspective. The GI law is ineffective against the borrowing of cultural elements by anyone who then applies these elements to products under their brand-name. This was witnessed when British designer Paul Smith sold footwear ‘inspired’ by Peshawari Chappals from Pakistan (not registered as a GI), as acknowledged after significant social media outrage.
An effective policy response to cultural appropriation then might be to extend the additional protections accorded to wines/spirits under Article 23 TRIPS to all goods. Under Article 23, wines/spirits enjoy ‘absolute and unqualified’ protection as GIs: they shall be protected, even if their use would not mislead the public. In contrast, under Article 22, GIs are protected with the limited aim of preventing unfair competition and/or avoiding misleading effects. The door remains ajar for cultural appropriation, since several WTO Members have not instituted additional protection for goods other than wines/spirits. Contrastingly, Section 22(2) of the GI Act empowers the Union Government to notify which products deserve higher protection. Notwithstanding the ‘Scotch’ disputes, Article 23 TRIPS has outlived the political purpose (of onboarding the European Union in the Uruguay Round) behind its introduction.
2) GI Registration as a Stepping Stone towards Protection Efforts
Despite its lacunae, the TRIPS GI regime is broad enough to protect the reputation attributable to a product’s origin, even when its features are unrelated to specific physical/climatic conditions of a geographical area. This is a step forward from the Lisbon Agreement, 1958, which offered limited protections to ‘appellations of origin’. Hence, the time is ripe for the global IP regime to comprehensively protect GI-registered products by enabling transnational protection of the specific features that render them unique. While there have been calls for getting the Kolhapuri Chappals patented (with the Maharashtra government actually contemplating so back in 2017), the same is not legally viable since the Patents Act only covers novel ‘inventions’ capable of industrial application. Protection under the Designs Act, 2000 is again not feasible since it safeguards only new/original designs, not already in the public domain.
Nonetheless, the utility of GIs (and their relevance in protecting a product’s authentic legacy) depends on efforts towards their promotion. Scholars often lament the lack of State support for such products. On one hand, the Union Government recognised the potential of Kolhapuri Chappals to contribute nearly $1 billion to India’s merchandise exports; on the other, traditional artisans from the Dalit and Charmakar communities struggle to make ends meet. Only after this controversy has the Maharashtra government undertaken steps towards securing GI tags for over 30 products. Prada also entered into talks with local artisans and the Maharashtra government over future collaborations and co-branding of Kolhapuri Chappals. Are these steps an eyewash? Or will they define a proactive governmental policy towards GIs? Only time will tell.
Concluding Remarks
Despite, or maybe because of, the legal and ethical concerns, sales of Kolhapuri Chappals have risen significantly since this controversy, proving the adage of ‘any publicity is good publicity’. With the country’s GI jurisprudence still being nascent and the State focusing disproportionately on the quantity of protected products (over the quality of protection it provides, or how these products can be commercialised better), this episode is a “reminder of a recurring strategic failure” of IP law and policy. For times to come, the potential of GI-registered products can be tapped by integrating them with the Union Government’s ‘One District One Product’ scheme. In fact, Kerala has proposed ‘Unity Malls’ to encourage the production of GI-tagged regional products. How IP law adapts to emerging challenges of cultural appropriation would be an interesting unravelling.
The authors are grateful to Swaraj and Praharsh for their thought-provoking, valuable feedback.