Cultural Inspiration or IP Oversight? A Legal Take on the Prada Controversy

Introduction

In July 2025, Prada, the Italian luxury fashion house, unveiled a line of open-toe sandals that bore a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri chappals, a handmade leather footwear native to parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka and recognised under India’s Geographical Indications (GI) regime. What followed was a flurry of criticism and a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed. Moreover, it started a debate on cultural appropriation, Intellectual Property (IP), and the role of global brands in engaging with traditional artisanship.

Recently, the Bombay High Court (BHC) dismissed the PIL filed against Prada. However, the controversy continues to raise deeper concerns. Whether the law is equipped to protect not just the name but also the essence and craftsmanship behind GI-tagged goods? Whether the enforcement is too narrow or reactive? And lastly, whether the current legal frameworks are truly benefiting the artisans at the heart of traditional industries?

In this article, the authors aim to analyse the Prada-Kolhapuri issue not only through the legal lens of GI protection but also by exploring questions around enforcement, equity, and cultural sensitivity in global commerce.

What GI Protection Actually Offers?

Firstly, before looking into whether legal action can be pursued in the Prada-Kolhapuri case, it is necessary to understand the legal implications of registering a GI under Chapter IV of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter “Act”). Section 21(1)(b) of the Act grants exclusive rights to authorised users, as defined under Section 17, to use the registered GI in relation to the specific goods for which it has been granted.

To qualify as an authorised user, Rule 56 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter “Rules”) requires a producer to file an application in Form GI-3, accompanied by a ‘statement of case’ that supports their claim. This may also include a letter of consent from the registered proprietor of the GI. 

The unauthorised use of a GI constitutes infringement under Section 22 of the Act. This kind of infringement occurs when:

• The GI is used in a way that falsely suggests a geographical origin different from the actual place of production, thereby misleading consumers,

• The usage amounts to unfair competition, including acts of passing off, or

• The words such as “style” or “imitation” are used in relation to the GI, even if the term itself is not explicitly employed.

  
  

Thus, Section 22 aims to preserve both the origin-based identity and the goodwill attached to the GI. It also needs to be noted that an infringement may also arise when products originate from the designated region, however, fail to conform to the standards required for GI certification. As per Section 27, only registered proprietors or authorised users can initiate legal proceedings for infringement. These provisions aim to safeguard the integrity, reputation, and commercial value of GI-protected goods.

At the international level, the TRIPS Agreement provides a baseline for GI protection, while the Lisbon Agreement (administered by WIPO) offers a registration system for appellations of origin and GIs. However, GI rights are territorial in nature. Indian registration does not automatically extend protection abroad, however Article 24 of TRIPS encourages mutual recognition through bilateral or multilateral arrangements.

No GI Infringement? Assessing Prada’s Position Under the GI Act

Now, moving further to the analysis of Prada’s case. A recent PIL filed in the Bombay HC raised a question- Whether Prada infringed the GI on Kolhapuri chappals by featuring a similar design in its Summer 2026 collection?

At first glance, the allegation appears quite serious and against Prada. Kolhapuri chappals are culturally significant as they are GI-registered products and are traditionally crafted in Maharashtra and Karnataka. However, upon closer legal scrutiny, the Bombay HC found no infringement. To analyse this better, we need to understand that Prada never marketed or labelled its sandals as “Kolhapuri.” There was no use of the GI-tagged name in any promotional material, branding, or packaging. The designs were described merely as ‘inspired by Indian craftsmanship’. Under the current GI Act, this does not amount to infringement.

This stands in contrast to more explicit GI violations. For example, in Scotch Whisky Association v. Golden Bottling Ltd., Indian distillers were barred by the Delhi High Court from marketing their products as ‘Scotch’ despite producing them domestically. The Scotch case involved a clear attempt to trade on the GI’s reputation, which was absent in the Prada matter. Moreover, under the GI Act, only registered proprietors and authorised users are allowed to use a term like “Kolhapuri” in connection with footwear. If an unauthorised party were to use the name directly, it would be a violation under Section 22. However, Prada never claimed any association with the Kolhapuri GI.

The PIL also raised the issue of passing off, alleging that Prada was copying the look and feel of Kolhapuris. However, under the GI Act, passing off requires a misrepresentation that deceives consumers. In Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd., the Calcutta High Court held that GI-based passing off should be examined similarly to trademark disputes. In Prada’s case, there was no suggestion that consumers, whether in Milan or Mumbai, were led to believe that the sandals originated from Kolhapur or were made by traditional artisans. The market segment, price point, and brand perception are entirely distinct. Thus, the claim of unfair competition also did not hold.

The Court also considered procedural aspects of the PIL. Section 11 of the GI Act states that only producer associations or government bodies can apply for GI registration. In this instance, LIDCOM (Maharashtra) and LIDKAR (Karnataka) are the registered proprietors of the Kolhapuri GI. Under Section 21, only they or authorised users may bring infringement actions. Therefore, a third-party PIL was not the correct legal route. Moreover, the Court found no evidence that LIDCOM or LIDKAR were incapable of taking legal action. The PIL lacked sufficient grounds to bypass these registered authorities and directly invoke judicial intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition, reasoning that the dispute required a factual examination. However, it also clarified that if the registered proprietors do believe infringement has occurred, they retain the right to initiate appropriate proceedings under the GI Act.

Rethinking GI Enforcement and Artisan Welfare

The Bombay HC’s reasoning in the Prada case is legally sound under the present legal framework of the GI Act, however,  the controversy also highlights a larger issue- the limitations of GI enforcement in protecting traditional artisans and their craft beyond the narrow interpretation of infringement.

The current GI regime focuses majorly on name-based misrepresentation. As seen in the Court’s reasoning, unless a party uses the actual registered term like “Kolhapuri” in the present case or directly misleads consumers about geographical origin till then no infringement is established. However, this interpretation fails to protect the valuable cultural and design elements that are core to artisanal identity. In many ways, this reduces the GI to a label rather than a comprehensive protection of cultural heritage.

Moreover, enforcement under the GI Act rests entirely in the hands of registered proprietors or authorised users. In practice, these are often state-backed bodies, as in the case of LIDCOM and LIDKAR, rather than the artisans themselves. Many artisans remain unaware of their rights, have limited involvement in enforcement decisions, and rarely see direct economic benefits from GI status. This disconnect makes it difficult for them to seek remedies or be empowered in situations of perceived cultural appropriation.

The Prada case highlights a bigger issue that when globally influential brands borrow from traditional cultures without engaging or crediting the original communities, it raises concerns about equity, recognition, and economic justice. Prada did eventually reach out to local artisans, reportedly initiating conversations around collaboration, however this was also a direct result of the criticism that it has to face due to this controversy. The case further reflects the gap between what the law requires and what ethical business practices demand.

The authors are of the viewpoint that if the GI law has to truly serve its intended purpose then enforcement must move beyond reactive litigation. There is a need for proactive steps to be taken such as capacity-building for artisan cooperatives, financial and legal support for enforcing GI rights, and frameworks for international collaboration. The law should not only protect the name however, it should also promote the value, dignity, and sustainability of traditional craft ecosystems.

Conclusion

Thus, the Prada-Kolhapuri case has sparked important questions that go beyond the technicalities of GI infringement. In legal terms, Prada stayed within bounds, however culturally and ethically, the debate is more complex. The case also brought into focus the limitations of India’s GI regime in addressing issues of cultural borrowing and ensuring fair recognition for artisan communities. The case further illustrates that mere registration under the GI Act does not guarantee protection against all forms of appropriation, nor does it automatically empower the artisans it is meant to support. Thus, at one place, the current legal framework protects against name-based misuse, however, at the same time, it also falls short of addressing some forms of design imitation or aesthetic borrowing that occur in the global marketplace.

Therefore, there is a need for a more holistic approach that combines legal protection with socio-economic empowerment. The law must evolve to be more inclusive, responsive, and in line to the realities of craft-based economies. Moreover, global brands should engage in more conscious sourcing and respectful collaboration when drawing inspiration from cultural heritage.