Abstract
This paper examines the scope and limitations of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in addressing the case of design imitation, with reference to the Kolhapuri Chappals and the Prada Sandals Controversy. The Kolhapuri Chappals, a traditional handcrafted leather footwear from Kolhapur, Maharashtra, was granted a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in 2019 to preserve its unique identity, prevent misuse of its name and support the livelihoods of artisans. However, the introduction of visually similar sandals by the Italian luxury fashion brand Prada in its 2026 collection sparked debate on whether GI protection extends beyond safeguarding or protecting product names to preventing imitation of design, style or appearance.
The research adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology. It relies on primary sources such as the GI Act, 1999, the Designs Act, 2000, the Copyrights Act, 1957 and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) under the WTO, alongside secondary sources such as journals, news articles, websites and blog posts. The analysis shows that while the GI Act offers protection against misuse of registered GI names and false claims of its origin, it does not prevent multinational brands from imitating traditional designs without acknowledgment or compensation. Enforcement further weaken protection because only registered proprietors and authorized users can pursue legal remedies. The GI Act provides protection only within India which makes it difficult to enforce in other countries.
The paper calls for changes to strengthen the protection of traditional designs by expanding the scope of GI law, broadening enforcement rights and protections under Designs Act and Copyright Act. It highlights the importance of non-legal strategies such as capacity building, building branding, raising consumer awareness and encouraging collaboration between artisans and global brands. The Kolhapuri-Prada controversy shows the need for a balanced approach that preserves cultural heritage, gives fair recognition to artisans and addresses the realities of international market.
Keywords: Geographical Indication, Kolhapuri Chappals, Prada Sandals, Design Imitation, Cultural Appropriation.
Introduction
Traditional crafts and local products often reflect the history, culture and skills of the communities that create them. The protection of these products has become important in today’s global marketplace where traditional designs are often imitated or copied without giving acknowledgment or benefit to the original craftsmen. This becomes unfair because the original craftsmen receive no recognition or compensation for their time and expertise invested in the work.
A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on products that originate from a specific geographical area and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially due to its origin and the traditional knowledge and skills of local communities.
One example is the Kolhapuri Chappal, a traditional handcrafted leather sandal from Kolhapur, Maharashtra. It was granted a GI tag in 2019 to preserve its unique identity, prevent misuse of its name and support the livelihoods of artisans who have passed down this craft through generations. Despite this protection, the effectiveness of the GI tag has recently come under public scrutiny.
The Italian luxury fashion brand Prada introduced sandals in its Men’s Spring/Summer 2026 collection that closely resembled the Kolhapuri Chappals. This sparked intense debate in India and abroad. It raised questions about cultural appropriation, the scope and limits of GI protection and the remedies available to local communities when international brands imitate traditional indigenous designs.
This paper critically examines whether the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 offers protection against design imitation by multinational companies. It also explores how traditional artisan communities can be safeguarded in today’s world where traditional or cultural products are increasingly globalized.
Research Methodology
This research adopts a doctrinal and analytical methodology. The research is based on both primary and secondary sources. Primary sources include the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Designs Act, 2000, the Copyright Act, 1957 and international frameworks such as the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Secondary sources include journals, news articles, websites and blog posts.
Review of Literature
The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation and More by Tanishka Goswami and Shikhar Aggarwal
The blog post titled “The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation and More” by Tanishka Goswami and Shikhar Aggarwal, published on July 4, 2025, emphasizes that the GI Act primarily protects only the name of a product such as Kolhapuri Chappals and not design or style of the product. It means that design imitation without using the registered GI name does not violate statutory provisions or constitute infringement.
Cultural Appropriation Versus Cultural Appreciation: The Case of the Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal by Dimple Aswani
The blog post titled “Cultural Appropriation Versus Cultural Appreciation: The Case of the Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal” by Dimple Aswani, published on August 13, 2025, examines the controversy surrounding Prada’s sandals that closely resembled the Kolhapuri Chappals. It observes that the design imitation falls outside the statutory scope of GI protection. It also focuses on the limitations of statutory protections to safeguard the traditional knowledge and skills of local artisans.
The GI Act and Prada’s Wake-Up Call by Navya Chaturvedi
The article titled “The GI Act and Prada’s Wake-Up Call” by Navya Chaturvedi, published on July 31, 2025, critiques the enforcement framework of the GI Act. It highlights that only registered proprietors and authorised users can initiate legal action against design imitation. It restricts public interest litigation (PIL) and other third-party claims. This limits the remedies available to artisans when international brands imitate their products without infringing the registered GI name.
Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandal Copies Show That Law Alone Can’t Protect India’s Cultural Capital by Debargha Roy and Tejaswini Kaushal
The news article titled “Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandal Copies Show That Law Alone Can’t Protect India’s Cultural Capital” by Debargha Roy and Tejaswini Kaushal, published on July 25, 2025, highlights the vulnerability of artisans when international brands imitate their designs. It argues that while the GI Act protects the name of the product but it does not address subtle or stylized forms of design imitation. It also suggests that amendments to the Designs Act, 2000 and Copyright Act, 1957 would help to provide a more holistic legal framework to protect traditional designs in international market.
Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy: Tip of the Iceberg by Sanjay Jain
The article titled “Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy: Tip of the Iceberg” by Sanjay Jain, published on July 26, 2025, shows that the Prada-Kolhapuri controversy is an indicative of structural weaknesses of the GI Act. It notes that the act provides limited recourse against foreign entities and highlights the asymmetry in resources between small artisan groups and large multinational corporations pointing out the practical challenges of enforcement.
Legal Framework of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (also known as GI Act) provides or establishes a statutory framework to protect products that originate from a specific geographical area and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially due to its origin and the traditional knowledge and skills of local communities.
Under Section 2(1)(e), a geographical indication is defined as a sign that identifies goods as originating from a particular territory or region or locality, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the goods is essentially linked or attributed to that origin or its geographical origin.
Registration under the GI Act confers or provides several rights and benefits including creates a protected name, maintains a register of authorized users and provides remedies against misuse.
The GI Act provides protection against:
- Unauthorized use of the registered GI name for goods not originating from the particular or specific area.
- Any false or misleading claims about or regarding the origin of goods.
- Any acts of unfair competition involving the GI.
The GI Act primarily protects the registered GI name of a product rather than the product’s physical appearance or design. Visual similarity between products alone does not constitute infringement unless it misleads consumers about the product’s origin or involves unfair competition.
Section 22 of the GI Act deals with infringement and provides civil remedies such as injunctions and damages. Infringement occurs when a GI is used in such a way that falsely claims that goods come from a specific geographic area or when it is applied to goods that do
not possess the specified quality, reputation or other characteristic. It also addresses false or misleading claims and acts of unfair competition.
Under the GI Act, enforcement rights are vested with registered proprietors and authorized users. Public interest litigants and third parties cannot enforce GI rights unless they are authorized or able to show or demonstrate direct injury that is recognised by law. For example, in the Kolhapuri Chappal Case, the Bombay High Court ruled that a public interest litigation filed by unrelated parties could not proceed due to lack of locus standi.
Under the GI Act, protection is territorial and enforceable only within India. International enforcement depends on protections in other countries’s jurisdictions. India’s GI Law aligns with the TRIPS Agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO). It requires legal measures to prevent misleading use of GIs and unfair competition. It allows national discretion in enforcement and does not mandate absolute protection except for wines and spirits. Therefore, GI protection focuses on the name of the product rather than exclusive rights over visual or stylistic features.
Kolhapuri Chappals vs. Prada Sandals: The Controversy
On June 22, 2025, Prada introduced sandals in its Men’s Spring/Summer 2026 collection at Milan Fashion Week that closely resembled traditional Kolhapuri Chappals. The Kolhapuri Chappals are handcrafted leather sandals from Kolhapur, Maharashtra. It was granted a GI tag in 2019. The GI tag legally recognizes their origin and protects the use of the name by registered proprietors and authorized users.
Prada did not use the term “Kolhapuri” for its sandals but the visual similarities between the products sparked widespread criticism on social media. The luxury brand was accused of cultural appropriation and commercialization of a low-cost traditional product into a luxury product. Due to the backlash, Prada acknowledged that the sandals were inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear. It also issued statements and initiated discussions with Indian artisan groups and trade bodies for potential collaboration. Due to the controversy, the domestic sales of Kolhapuri chappals reportedly increased as local manufacturers leveraged the global spotlight.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by five advocates led by Ganesh Hingmire in the Bombay High Court seeking legal action, apology and compensation. On July 16, 2025, the Court dismissed the PIL, emphasizing that only the registered proprietors and authorized users have the right to enforce GI protection under the GI Act. The judges stated that the Leather Industries Development Corporation of Maharashtra (LIDCOM) and Leather Industries Development Corporation (LIDCA) of Karnataka are the registered proprietors of GI Kolhapuri Chappals. The court stated that only they have the right to file the suit for infringement. This ruling highlighted the procedural and enforcement limitations of public-interest suits in cases of GI disputes.
Prada acknowledged its inspiration but did not use the registered GI name “Kolhapuri” for its sandals so there is no direct statutory violation under the GI Act. Also, Prada did not claim that the sandals were made in Kolhapur or market them as traditional Kolhapuri Chappals. Therefore, the misrepresentation claim of origin under the GI Act is difficult to establish. While the issues of unfair competition or passing off could theoretically arise, proving that the consumers were confused or the reputation of Kolhapuri Chappals was exploited would be legally complex and challenging.
Limitations of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The GI Act primarily protects the name of a product linked to a specific geographical area but it has several limitations that reduce its effectiveness against design imitation.
The Act focuses narrowly on preventing misuse of the registered GI name of the product. It does not automatically prevent others from copying the visual pattern, design, style and overall appearance of a product as long as the registered GI name is not used. For example, Prada’s Kolhapuri inspired sandals are priced around Rs. 1.2 lakhs per pair while traditional Kolhapuri Chappals sell domestically for just Rs. 500 to Rs. 4000. The artisans who craft these chappals earn very modest incomes with many making roughly Rs. 3000 to Rs. 8000 per month. Small artisan units generate an annual gross revenue of about Rs. 2 lakhs. This stark disparity highlights how luxury brands make profits enormously from designs rooted in traditional craftsmanship while the original artisans receive only a fraction of the economic value. This gap raises concerns about cultural appropriation and the need for fair mechanisms that ensure artisans benefit from their cultural heritage and skills.
Enforcement of GI rights is restricted to registered proprietors and authorized users. These groups often lack the financial resources, legal expertise and capacity to monitor markets and take action against those who constitute infringement. This creates challenges in ensuring active protection and policing of GI products both offline and online.
The protection is territorial meaning it is applicable only within India. Imitation by international brands remains largely unchecked unless separate measures such as foreign registrations or local lawsuits are pursued. Additionally, the law does not require attribution or benefit-sharing when traditional designs are used commercially abroad leaving local artisan communities without recognition or compensation.
Another limitation is the weak branding and public awareness among producers. Many artisans have limited ability to promote their GI products effectively or to access premium markets using the GI products. This restricts the commercial and cultural impact that legal protection is intended to provide to the local communities.
Finally, there is no binding international framework to protect the design or style of GI tagged products. While agreements like TRIPS protect names in specific categories such as wines and spirits, broader international framework and recognition for design imitation is lacking and also no global GI registry exists to enforce such protections.
Therefore, these gaps highlight that while the GI Act protects the name of a product, it does not protect against cultural appropriation, design imitation and the economic disadvantages faced by local artisan communities.
Suggestions
To strengthen the protection of traditional designs like Kolhapuri Chappals and to ensure a fair balance between cultural exchange and appropriation, several measures are recommended.
The GI Act should be amended to include distinctive shapes, patterns, designs and techniques that are integral to a product’s identity. Expanding the legal definition of GI to include these features would allow enforcement not only against misuse of the name but also against copying of the design or style of the product.
Authorized producer groups, trade associations and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should be allowed to initiate enforcement actions in cases of cultural misappropriation with safeguards to prevent frivolous or opportunistic claims. Additionally, fast-track mechanisms for interim relief such as temporary injunctions in the cases of infringement, preventing sales, online marketing and advertisements of infringed proiducts. Joint registration of GI names and distinctive designs could further strengthen protection and simplify enforcement against imitation.
In international market, GI proprietors should be encouraged to secure complementary protections such as trademarks and design registrations in key export markets. Bilateral or multilateral agreements could facilitate recognition and enforcement of Indian GI products abroad. Cooperation with e-commerce platforms and custom authorities would help block fake products and ensure that products carry information about their origin and authenticity. Industry guidelines would promote benefit-sharing, attribution and fair compensation for artisans.
Artisan communities need stronger support to enforce their rights and expand their access to markets. Legal aid and rapid-response funds provided by government would help communities to pursue cases, defend against infringement and negotiate settlements. Help in branding, certification and marketing would enhance market visibility and competitiveness. Documentation of traditional crafts, including patterns, techniques and cultural significance can serve as evidence in legal disputes, guide enforcement actions and educate consumers. This will help to prevent misappropriation and build recognition.
Non-legal measures also play an important role in safeguarding cultural heritage. Creating platforms for dialogue and collaboration between international brands and artisan communities could encourage co-creation and reduce conflicts. This will ensure that traditional designs are used responsibly with proper attribution and compensation. Public awareness campaigns would educate consumers about the importance of supporting authentic GI products and promote traditional products.
Finally, regular monitoring of enforcement actions, legal outcomes and settlements is necessary to build knowledge on the protection of GI, design and cultural heritage. Supporting research, training and capacity building initiatives would equip artisan communities with the tools they need to protect their heritage effectively.
Overall, these suggestions combine legal reforms, international strategies, community capacity building and ethical practices to ensure that local artisans communities benefit fairly from their cultural heritage while maintaining a balance with trade, creativity and international obligations.
Conclusion
The Kolhapuri Chappals and Prada Sandals case shows both the scope and limitations of the India’s current GI Act. While the Act protects the name of a product linked to a specific geographical area, it does not extend protection to its design, style or appearance. As a result, international brands can imitate traditional designs without committing statutory violations, leaving local artisans vulnerable. This highlights the limited scope of GI Act and the broader challenge of addressing cultural appropriation.
The controversy also underlines the difficulties faced in enforcement. The Act restricts enforcement rights to registered proprietors and authorized users, but many of them lack the financial resources to initiate legal proceedings particularly against large multinational companies. The territorial nature of GI Act further weakens their protection in the global marketplace. In addition, the lack of benefit-sharing or recognition mechanisms often leaves artisan excluded from the economic gains generated by their cultural heritage.
Legal reform and policy innovation are therefore necessary to bridge these gaps. Expanding the scope of GI protection to include distinctive patterns and designs, broadening enforcement rights and promoting protections under the Designs Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957, would help to strengthen the position of traditional artisan communities. At the same time, non-legal measures such as capacity building, building branding, consumer awareness and collaborative frameworks between artisans and international brands can provide practical solutions.
In conclusion, the Kolhapuri-Prada controversy reflects the tension between cultural heritage and global commerce. Protecting traditional products requires a careful balance between safeguarding community rights, encouraging fair cultural exchange and accommodating international trade obligations. A holistic framework that combines legal, institutional and ethical measures offers the most sustainable way forward. It ensures that artisans receive due recognition and fair benefits from their skills while keeping traditional knowledge alive for future generations.
References
- Vinaya Deshpande Pandit, Kolhapuri chappal makers cry foul over Prada’s ‘replica’ sandal, The Hindu (June 27, 2025, 12:28 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/maharashtra/kolhapuri-chappal-makers-cry-foul-over-pradas-replica-sandal/article69741459.ece
- Tanishka Goswami and Shikhar Aggarwal, The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation and More, SpicyIP (Aug. 18, 2025, 1:12 PM), https://spicyip.com/2025/07/the-devil-wears-kolhapuri-or-prada-understanding-gi-law-cultural-appropriation-more.html
- Dimple Aswani, Cultural Appropriation Versus Cultural Appreciation: The Case of the Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal, The IP Press (Aug. 18, 2025, 1:15 PM), https://www.theippress.com/2025/08/13/cultural-appropriation-versus-cultural-appreciation-the-case-of-the-prada-kolhapuri-chappal/
- Navya Chaturvedi, The GI Act and Prada’s Wake-Up Call, Mondaq (July 31, 2025), https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1659632/the-gi-act-and-pradas-wake-up-call
- Debargha Roy and Tejaswini Kaushal, Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandal Copies Show That Law Alone Can’t Protect India’s Cultural Capital, Scroll.in (July 25, 2025, 9:00 AM), https://scroll.in/article/1084820/pradas-kolhapuri-sandal-copies-show-that-law-alone-cant-protect-indias-cultural-capital
- Sanjay Jain, Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy: Tip of the Iceberg, Bar and Bench (July 26, 2025, 3:44 PM), https://www.barandbench.com/columns/prada-kolhapuri-chappal-controversy-a-tip-of-the-iceberg
- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 2(1)(e), No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India)
- Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, § 22, No. 48, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India)
- Vinaya Deshpande Pandit, Global fashion giant Prada acknowledges Kolhapuri inspiration, The Hindu (June 28, 2025, 10:58 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/prada-finally-acknowledges-kolhapuri-chappals-inspiration-for-footwear-in-fashion-show/article69747610.ece
- Rosy Sequeira, PIL against ‘Kolhapuri-like’ Prada sandals dismissed by Bombay high court, The Times of India (July 16, 2025, 2:10 PM), https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/pil-over-kolhapuri-like-prada-sandals-dismissed-by-bombay-hc/articleshow/122560047.cms
- Ashish Mukherjee, How the Kolhapuri chappal has Prada on the back foot, India Today (June 30, 2025, 5:56 PM), https://www.indiatoday.in/india-today-insight/story/how-the-kolhapuri-chappal-has-prada-on-the-back-foot-2748416-2025-06-30
- Shilpi Kumari, Geographical Indications Laws In India: Challenges And Issues, Mondaq (Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/1048832/geographical-indications-laws-in-india-challenges-and-issues
Name: Jenetta Giddo Koodaly
College Name: NMIMS Kirit P. Mehta School of Law, Mumbai