This article is authored by Rajini Bollera Kushalappa, student, LLM (IP and Tech Law) at RV university School of Law, Bengaluru, Karnataka, Aparajita Singh, Research Assistant to The Hon’ble Justice at The High Court of Judicature at Patna, Bihar and Aditi Sharma, student, LLM (IP and Tech Law) at Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, Haryana

The Spark

In June 2025, Milan fashion week witnessed a cultural struggle when the Italian luxury fashion brand Prada presented a new items of men sandals in its Spring/Summer 2026 collection. Cookie cutter pairs of sandals as far as the eye can see priced at a blistering 1.2 lakh rupees per pair, the sandal attracted instant attention but not due to its cost but due to its uncanny resemblance to Kolhapuri chappals, a traditional pair of handmade leather footwear produced by artisans in Kolhapur, Maharashtra. Its resemblance provoked anger in India and more so among the craftsmen who have mastered this art through decades. They argued that Prada was taking their cultural heritage but they were not getting any credit or even pay and this initiated a flame of controversy. The case placed the issue of cultural appropriation, intellectual property (IP) rights, and ethical fashion under the spotlight and made the global industry reconsider how it is going to work with the traditional crafts. It began by being a fashion statement yet it was soon transformed into a justice that was demanded to be committed.

Background: GI Tag & Cultural Significance

Kolhapuri chappals are not just a pair of shoes; they represent centuries of Indian craftsmanship, and they go back to the 12 th century when the King Bijjal ruled in Bidar, Karnataka. They thrived in the era of Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj, a Maratha king who promoted local craft in Maharashtra in the early 20th century. Made of leather, these sandals are heralded as being durable, highly stitched and with cultural significance, sometimes with decorative features such as braids or pom-poms. In December 2018, their importance was recognized to be of a Geographical Indication (GI) under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in India. It is spread over eight districts (Kolhapur, Sangli, Solapur, Satara) in Maharashtra and Karnataka (Belgaum, Dharwad, Bagalkot, Bijapur) districts and only artisans in these regions are allowed to make and sell them as Kolhapuri chappals. The GI tag associates the product with its origin and this prevents the imitation of its heritage. Organizations such as LIDCOM (Leather Industries Development Corporation of Maharashtra) which was started in 1974 to improve the condition of the Charmakar community, and LIDKAR (Karnataka counterpart) support this legacy. Funded by the government to the tune of more than 73 crores by the year 2007, LIDCOM provides training, subsidy and market access to artisans of communities such as Dhor and Chambhar. Being the co-owners of the GI tag, these bodies have legal control over its usage, which supports the cultural and economic significance of the chappals and protects the traditional knowledge against abuse.

IP dilemma: When Couture Crosses the Line.

The scandal broke out when Prada presented its sandals at the Milan Fashion Week in June 2025. They were sold as basic leather flat sandals, but the design resembled the unique qualities of Kolhapuri chappals, that is, they were open-toed, made of leather and were minimalistic and elegant.  The Indian artisans, especially those of Kolhapur, were outraged, and this they considered a direct theft of their tradition. The absence of any mention of Kolhapur or its craftsmen led to charges of cultural appropriation, the 1.2 lakh rupee price tag standing in sharp contrast to the small 500 rupee to 2,000-rupee price of the original chappals. A senior politician Sharad Pawar of the NCP and the chief minister of Maharashtra Devendra Fadnavis came out in the open to criticize Prada and term its actions as unethical and perhaps illegal. Social media added fuel to the fire as hashtags, such as #KolhapuriChappalChor were used to condemn what netizens were calling fashion colonialism. Prada refused to comment at first but then acknowledged that the design was inspired by Kolhapuri chappals promising to follow the responsibility of design and connect with Indian craftsmen. But this was seen as a mere show by many who said that cultural dignity could not be repaired. The case brought up complicated issues legally. India GI Act, Section 22, states that it is prohibited to use a registered GI in a misleading way and, although Prada did not use the term Kolhapuri, the visual resemblance may mislead consumers, which is also an infringement. This is further reinforced in Section 23 that permits the use of GI certificates in court, and Section 39 that prescribes penalties on misleading labeling. Designs Act, 2000, may also be used in the event of Kolhapuri variants being registered and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, also certifies marks of authenticity. In the world, India and Italy are countries that are signatories in the TRIPS Agreement, and therefore, they are required to enforce GI protection under Article 22, and Article 10bis of the Paris Convention prohibits unfair competition. The legal principles such as passing off, where a party passes off goods as those of another could be used to strengthen cases against Prada. LIDCOM and legal activists are supporting artisan groups in considering injunctions under the GI Act or diplomatic pressures through India Ministry of Commerce. The scandal revealed weaknesses within IP protection and fashion industry blind spots, and it is hoped that this will prompt a system-wide change.

What Artisans Are Demanding?

The Kolhapur artisans who have preserved an old tradition of leathercraft over hundreds of years, have now been thrown into the international limelight as Prada luxury sandals aped their legendary Kolhapuri chappals. However, this is not only a time of outrage, but a time of taking back credit, rights, and belonging in the fashion world. Their initial demand is basic but crucial, that is, acknowledgment. Beyond mere tokenism, in every product label, campaign, and online platform, make it clear that Kolhapuri chappals are a product of culture, and they are GI-protected under Indian law, something consumers need to learn. Credit cannot be the only thing. The tangible benefit sharing is demanded by the artisans: direct orders by a group of artisans, fair royalty models, and co-branded collections. In case, luxury brands make gain with traditional designs, they should cooperate and pay. These requirements resonate international standards on traditional knowledge and fair advantage-sharing. Government support is also very important. Artisans also require active GI enforcement, cross-border IP cases (legal assistance), and registration of certification or collective trademarks, particularly so as to claim their identity in online markets where their imitations are rampant. Tech also contributes to that. Craftspeople are demanding QR code authentication, blockchain provenance, and GI-based electronic labels, which are already applied to Darjeeling tea and Banarasi silk, to protect authenticity and strengthen the market price. And they do not only desire protection, but a platform. Whether it is fashion weeks or cultural expos, artistes are trying to gain exposure, funding of design labs, youth apprenticeships and scholarships to ensure future of their craft. This is not charity, it is justice after all. A plea to change the story: one of viewing artisans as a faceless source of inspiration to one of viewing artisans as innovators and co-creators. The message is simple to both the global brands and the policymakers, pay respect to tradition, reward creativity, and be inclusive. 

Wider Significance

 The Prada Kolhapuri imbroglio is not a one-off case. It brings to light a long-term international pattern: the appropriation of Indian crafts being borrowed by luxury fashion houses on a regular basis, without any payments, cooperation or recognition, whether it is the Naga shawl patterns used by Christian Louboutin or the Banarasi brocade-inspired textiles by Louis Vuitton. Whether they are Paithani sarees, Solapuri chaddars, mirrorwork embroidery of Gujarat and tribal designs of the Northeast, Indian designs have always been on the international ramp, deprived of context. These living traditions, that are transferred down through the generations, are subject to a more subtle, yet equally destructive, form of appropriation whereby aesthetic triumphs, but artisan becomes a lost memory. India might possess robust legal instrumentation such as the GI Act and Designs Act but poor enforcement, little knowledge about artisans, and absence of cross-border IP have resulted in the fact that global brands do not incur any penalties. India should do more than react with outrage to alter this. What is required is a transition to ethical standards of branding, diplomatic politics and proactive enforcement of IP-where it is not only law that protects heritage, but culture that is honored in the global marketplace.

Endnotes:

1. Anjana Sharma, “Cultural Appropriation in Fashion: The Unending Debate,” The Business of Fashion, May 15, 2023,https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/fashion-week/cultural-appropriation-fashion-the-unending-debate/ (accessed July 3, 2025).
2. Government of India, The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, India Code, Ministry of Law and Justice, 1999.
3. Government of India, The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, India Code, Ministry of Law and Justice, 1999.
4. Rahul Singh, “The Nexus of IP, Ethics, and Traditional Knowledge in the Fashion Industry,” Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, vol. 28, no. 1, 2024, pp. 45-62.
5. Vandana Shiva, Biopiracy: The Plunder of Nature and Knowledge, South End Press, 1997.
6. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & T.G. Ajitha, Principles of Intellectual Property, 3rd ed., Eastern Book Company, 2017, pp. 450-452.
7. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s. 23, s. 39.
8. World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement), art. 22, 1994; Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, art. 10bis, 1883.
9. World Intellectual Property Organization, “WIPO’s Work on Geographical Indications,” WIPO, https://www.wipo.int/geo_indications/en/ (accessed July 3, 2025).
10. Apoorva Singh, “When Global Brands Plunder Local Crafts: A Study of Cultural Appropriation in India’s Fashion Landscape,” Indian Journal of Cultural Studies, vol. 15, no. 2, 2023, pp. 88-105.