THE PRADA PARADOX: AN ANALYSIS OF GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION & INFRINGEMENT IN THE KOLHAPURI CHAPPAL CONTROVERSY

Introduction

The Italian luxury brand Prada has found itself embroiled in a controversy revolving around the misappropriation and plagiarism of an Indian footwear (chappal) style by utilizing the same in its recent Spring/Summer 2026[1] collection. The controversy stems from the unauthorised use of a Kolhapuri Chappal design which is a registered[2] Geographical Indication (“GI”) in India under Class 25 owned by Sant Roahidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Limited (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Limited (LIDKAR).

Soon after its release, Indian community reacted to the Prada's new collection in a swift and widespread manner. Firstly, the artisan communities of Maharashtra recognized the design and voiced their protest, framing it as a direct violation of their GI rights. This was followed by a delegation of Kolhapuri artisans led by a Member of Parliament to meet with the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. A formal letter was submitted demanding the Maharashtra government to take up the issue with the Central Government for immediate intervention to protect the artisan's GI rights. Recently, Public Interest Litigation was filed in the Bombay High Court accusing Prada of cultural misappropriation and unauthorized commercialization of a GI-tagged product and sought an injunction and compensation for the harm caused to the community and the cultural heritage of the state[1].

In order to understand the legal nuances involved in this issue, it is imperative to first understand the historical significance of the Kolhapuri chappal. According to the application filed at the GI Registry, the historical origin of Kolhapuri chappals dates back to 12th or 13th centuries from the princely state of Kolhapur in Maharashtra[1] characterized by its distinctive design elements of open-toed, T-strap sandal with a toe-ring or loop for the big toe. The production and manufacturing of the Kolhapuri Chappal has been the domain knowledge of specific communities.

 

Geographical Indication Protection under Indian Law

In India, protection to community-held traditional knowledge and products like the Kolhapuri Chappal, is broadly governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”). Under the scheme of GI Act, protection is granted to indications[1] which includes name, geographical or figurative representation, or any combination of names conveying or suggesting the geographical origin of goods to which it applies. Additionally, GI[1] in relation to goods means an indication which identifies such goods as agricultural goods, natural goods or manufactured goods as originating, or manufactured in the territory of a country, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of such goods is essentially attributable to its geographical origin and in case where such goods are manufactured goods one of the activities of either the production or of processing or preparation of the goods concerned takes place in such territory, region or locality.

It may appear from the definition of GI that the protection offered is similar to that of a trademark[1], however, both are different. GI recognizes origin of goods from a particular geographical territory with specific characteristics such as Dussheri Malihabadi Mangoes[2], Pochampalli Ikkat[3], etc. whereas trademark recognizes goods or services offered by a particular company, organisation or individual. Moreover, GI is offered to community-held knowledge of a territory whereas, trademark is granted on an individual basis. The protection granted under the GI Act is territory specific as in the present case only handcrafted Chappals within four (4) districts of Maharashtra (Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, and Solapur) and four (4) districts of Karnataka (Bagalkot, Belgavi (Belgaum), Dharwad, and Bijapur) are legally entitled to be called Kolhapuri Chappals.

 

Further, the GI Act grants protection against the unauthorised use or infringement[4] of GI for the following:

  1. Deceptive Labelling: Indicating a product originates from the protected geographical area when it does not.
  2. Unfair Competition: Causing confusion with a competitor's goods or making false claims to discredit them.
  3. Misleading Associations: Using another region's name to falsely imply it has the qualities of the registered GI.
  4. Using Imitation Language: Employing terms like "style," "kind," or "imitation" alongside the GI for goods not from that region.

The instant controversy arose because of the unauthorized use of the design by Prada with the visual similarity that can cause confusion in the minds of consumers (unfair competition); the T-strap construction, the form, and the overall aesthetic were immediately recognizable to anyone familiar with the Indian style of Kolhapuri Chappals. The central legal issue is whether Prada's actions constitute infringement of the registered "Kolhapuri" GI under the GI Act. It is pertinent to note that Prada has not used the word "Kolhapuri" or any deceptively similar term that a GI protects and used the term “Sandals” which is in the public domain. Thus, prima facie the case of infringement does not appear. However, it can be argued that infringement can extend beyond the literal use of the registered name to encompass the misappropriation of the product's identity through its distinctive presentation and the reputation it evokes.

Further, the presentation of the Prada sandal including the T-strap design, braided leather aesthetic, and overall visual identity is intrinsically similar to that of the Chappals produced in the Kolhapur region. In this case the design itself functions as an indication of origin. Further, by presenting a footwear design that is universally recognized as Kolhapuri, but which is manufactured in Italy, Prada has suggested a false geographical origin, thereby misleading consumers who associate that specific design with Indian craftsmanship and heritage. The definition of an indication under the GI Act explicitly includes figurative representation. The unique design of the chappal can be regarded as a figurative representation.  

 

It can also be argued that Prada has acted contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters by leveraging the centuries-old reputation, cultural significance, and design language of the Kolhapuri Chappal without consent, credit, or compensation, has engaged in an act that is fundamentally contrary to honest commercial practices. It is a form of free-riding on the goodwill and reputation painstakingly built by the artisan community, which constitutes a misappropriation of that reputation. Although, after the receiving public ire, Prada has acknowledged that the design was inspired by the traditional Indian handcrafted footwear[1]

However, Prada has not categorically used any indication which suggests that the footwear design belongs to or is affiliated to the region of Kolhapuri Chappals. In the light of this, it shall be pertinent to understand the evolving jurisprudence in the domain of GI by Indian courts.

 

Indian Jurisprudence in GI Cases

The jurisprudence developed by the Indian courts relies heavily on the nature of the GI and the infringing use. There are various significant cases pertaining to GI Rights in India, but none of them provides an analysis on unauthorized use of GI which is similar to the Kolhapuri- Prada Case.

In the case of Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De Champagne vs M/S Chinar Agro Fruit Products[1], (“Champagne Case”) the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction, ruling that the use of the name "Champagne" on non-alcoholic sparkling drinks constituted an infringement of the registered Geographical Indication (GI). The court directed to avoid GI dilution, prevent consumer deception, protect the reputation and goodwill of the producers from the Champagne region of France (Registered Proprietor[2] in India as well) and from becoming a generic term.

 

This judgment establishes a crucial precedent for protecting the integrity of a GI, even when the infringing product was not identical to the original. A similar reasoning can be observed in the instant case where Prada’s high-end sandals are strikingly similar to the GI-protected Kolhapuri Chappals. While alleged infringement pertains to the design rather than the name, the underlying principles from the Champagne Case are relevant. The unauthorized use of the iconic Kolhapuri design by can be seen as a form of passing off that misleads consumers and unjustly enriches Prada by trading on the cultural heritage and craftsmanship of Kolhapuri artisans. Just as the court sought to prevent the dilution of the "Champagne" name, a similar argument can be made that Prada's actions dilute the unique identity and economic value of Kolhapuri Chappals, causing significant harm to the artisan communities that depend on this traditional craft for their livelihood. The Champagne Case underscores the importance of protecting the collective rights and reputation associated with a GI.

 

Territoriality Issue

Perhaps, the most significant practical limitation which impacts enforcement of rights under the GI Act is the territorial limits on enforcement of rights. The protection granted by the GI registration for Kolhapuri Chappals is enforceable only within India. This creates a territoriality trap. The registration under the GI Act shall prevent Prada from marketing and selling its sandals in India under the name "Kolhapuri," but it offers no legal recourse to the registered proprietors of Kolhapuri Chappals against Prada for manufacturing the sandals in Italy or any other country and selling them under a different name. The Indian law does not have extraterritorial jurisdiction to stop these sales abroad.

This limitation underscores the critical need for stronger international frameworks for the protection of GIs. While the TRIPS Agreement provides a minimum standard, it does not create a global GI registry or mandate automatic reciprocal protection for enforcement of rights.

 

Conclusion

 

The Prada-Kolhapuri dispute hinges on a pivotal legal question. Infringement could be proven if an Indian court accepts that the Kolhapuri Chappal's iconic design constitutes a figurative representation of its origin, thereby protecting more than just the name. However, a court could reject the claim, citing the absence of precedent and Prada's non-use of the "Kolhapuri" name. Even if infringement is established in India, the territorial nature of the GI Act presents the greatest hurdle. It offers no power to stop Prada from manufacturing in Italy and selling globally, making effective enforcement against the luxury brand nearly impossible.

 

Author: Shashwat Tiwari, Associate, NovoJuris Legal.


[1] CS(COMM) 1194/2016. Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/162154352/  

[2] Registration No. 140 in Class 33 for the GI “Champangne” dated September 29, 2008. The details of GI Tag protection awarded in favour of Champangnei is available at https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/140    

[1] The Corporate Social Responsibility chief at Prada said in a letter to Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/prada-accused-of-cashing-in-on-indian-culture-with-kolhapuri-inspired-sandals   

[1] Section 2 (zb) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 defines trademark as a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours

[2] Registration No. 125 in Class 31 for the GI “Mango Malihabadi Dusseri” dated May 15, 2008. The details of GI Tag protection awarded in favour of Mango Malihabadi Dusseri is available at https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/125  

[3] Registration No. 4 in Classes 24, 25 and 27 for the GI “Pochampally Ikkat” dated December 15, 2003. The details of GI Tag protection awarded in favour of Pochampally Ikkat is available at https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/4  

[4] Section 22 of the GI Act defines unauthorized use of GI Tag which shall constitute Infringement.

[1] Section 2(e) of the GI Act defines Geographical Indication

[1] Section 2 (g) of the GI Act defines Indication

[1] As specified in the Statement of Case filed with the GI Registry, available at https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/ViewDocument 

[1] The Spring/Sumer 2026 collection including Kolharpuri Chappals is visible at the official website of Prada https://www.prada.com/ww/en/pradasphere/fashion-shows/2026/ss-menswear.html        

[2]Registration No. 169 in Class 25 for the GI “Kolhapuri Chappal” dated May 4, 2009. The details of GI Tag protection awarded in favour of Kolhapuri chappal is available https://search.ipindia.gov.in/GIRPublic/Application/Details/169  

Contact us for a Solution

Contact us for more information about our services and how we can help

Contact
Disclaimer

As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, we are not permitted to advertise or solicit work. By accessing and browsing through this website, all users agree and acknowledge that the content of this website is for informational purposes only and that there has been no form of solicitation, advertisement or inducement by NovoJuris Legal or its members, in any form. No information provided on this website should be construed as legal advice and NovoJuris Legal shall not be liable for consequences of any action taken by relying on the information provided on this website.