This article is authored by Vidya Shruti, a fourth-year B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s) student at the Chanakya National Law University, Patna.

A German company once claimed to have invented a biodegradable plate, which was simply the traditional Indian pattal or patravalli, highlighting how indigenous knowledge is often rebranded as innovation. From the marketing of ‘Indian styled toilets’ as ‘Squatty Potty’ to ayurvedic and healthy ‘haldi doodh’ to “chai-tea latte’, such cases reflect a modern form of cultural appropriation for commercial gain. Now, it was the turn of the fashion industry where the renowned Italian luxury fashion brand Prada recently launched a pair of sandals in their latest Spring-Summer 2026 Men’s collection that closely resemble the iconic Kolhapuri chappals. 

Prada faced criticism for launching sandals at over $800 closely resembling India’s traditional Kolhapuri chappals, originally priced around $12. They acknowledged the design’s Indian roots only after backlash, replying to Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA), by recognizing the cultural significance of the footwear. While that step was appreciated, the delay highlighted concerns about appropriation. This issue isn’t just about design similarities, but also about representation, marketing, and profit. The vast price gap further fuelled outrage over the exploitation of indigenous craftsmanship. It raises a larger question: Is credit enough? Is this fair? How long can the term “inspired” be used to overlook such situations?

The issue goes beyond simple cultural appropriation it cuts into economic justice, intellectual property protection, and the rights of traditional knowledge holders. Whenever any global corporations earn such disproportionate profits from traditional indigenous designs, it highlights a systemic imbalance in global trade and cultural recognition.

Economic Impact on Artisan Communities

Indian handicrafts are not just remains of the past; they are living traditions which provide livelihoods to millions of artisans. Products like Kolhapuri chappals are not just a product but embodiments of community identity, local history, and generational skills passed down through generations.

Promoting Indian crafts on global platforms does more than preserve heritage, it paves the way for a robust export economy. When Kolhapuris appear in an international headline, it’s not just a cultural moment but also a commercial opportunity, revealing a largely latent market for traditional products. Yet, the lack of adequate market strategies, legal protections, an evolved system for regulations, knowledge and support often compel Indian artisans to remain on the side-lines, watching others profit from their creations.

THE ROLE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

Kolhapuri chappals have already been granted a Geographical Indication (GI) tag under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. A GI indicates that a product possesses certain qualities, reputation, or characteristics attributable to its geographic origin. This helps in preserving the identity of traditional crafts. 

Section 2 (e) of the 1999 Act states, “Geographical indication, 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. In cases where such goods are manufactured, at least one of the activities either production, processing, or preparation must take place in that specific territory, region, or locality. For the purposes of this clause, any name which is not the name of a country, region, or locality shall also be considered a geographical indication if it relates to a specific geographical area and is used on or in connection with particular goods originating from that country, region, or locality.”

However, GI protection primarily prevents unauthorized use of the name “Kolhapuri chappal”. It does not prohibit the replication of the design if marketed under a different name, nor does it ensure profit-sharing. In the Prada case, the company avoided naming the sandals “Kolhapuri,” thereby staying outside the bounds of GI infringement. Thus, while GI is a useful tool for branding and market access, it is limited in scope and does not prevent design misappropriation.

Also, India’s Designs Act, 2000 offers protection for new and original designs that are capable of being applied to an article by industrial means. Traditional crafts can be registered under this act to prevent their replication by others. However, many artisans are unaware of this legal right, and the registration process is often inaccessible or unaffordable to small-scale producers, which many artisans fail to do, allowing companies to profit from their designs.

Additionally, design protection requires novelty or the quality of being new and original, which is a challenge for traditional and publicly known designs. Still, the community or a cooperative could adapt and register new contemporary versions of traditional styles for better legal protection. 

A number of international treaties deal partly or entirely with the protection of geographical indications or appellations of origin, administered by WIPO, as well as to the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Under Article 10bis of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (to which India is a signatory), unfair competition includes acts that create confusion, damage the goodwill of others, or involve unjust enrichment. 

However, such frameworks remain largely non-binding and underdeveloped in most national IP systems, including India. Such enforcement remains difficult unless India pushes for stronger implementation both domestically and through international trade channels. There is an urgent need to codify and operationalize such laws to extend meaningful protection to cultural assets like Kolhapuri Chappals, Banarasi Silk, or anything as the case may be. 

The Unfair & Restrictive Trade Practices under Competition Act, 2002, when a large company profits from indigenous designs without fair attribution or compensation, it could be argued as misleading or unethical business conduct.  It is worth noting how popular global brands can launch any product and immediately attract buyers, in a time when ‘trends’ overpower ‘traditions.’ It is undesirable as it discourages artisans and promotes unskilled workers to a large extent. 

IS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ENOUGH?

No. Simply crediting the source, as Prada did, does not address the core issue of economic disparity. Artisans, who are the custodians of these designs, gain nothing while brands leverage heritage for profit. Cultural inspiration should come with legal and financial obligations. It disturbs the natural cultural-monetary balance among the societies, encouraging materialism but art and skill.

What is needed is a model of ethical collaboration and benefit-sharing!

THE WAY FORWARD

Governments or cooperatives representing artisan communities can develop licensing frameworks that allow companies to use traditional designs only after entering into benefit-sharing agreements. A portion of profits must go back to the artisans, not just as a goodwill gesture, but as a contractual right.

GI protection should be expanded beyond names to cover visual and functional attributes of traditional products. Under WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, India can get an international recognition of GIs so that misuse abroad can also be penalised and checked.

Kolhapuri Chappal and not only them, Banarasi Saari, Madhubani prints, Bhagalpuri silk fabrics, Pasmina Silk and what not among the huge variety India have, these may be branded globally to world class craft goods and products such as Japanese kimonos, Scottish tartan. India can create strong global brands on its traditional crafts through its alignment with movements such as, Vocal for Local, Made in India campaigns and advertisements and similar initiatives on a large scale by integrating it with e-commerce, sustainable fashion and tourism initiatives. Along with involvement of local groups, self-help groups and other such communities. 

A mass investment should be done to help artisans facilitating them in better connectivity, technical support, design innovations, eco-friendly production, and digital skills without diluting the cultural essence of their craft. They should be made aware of the market infrastructure, marketing strategies, and Intellectual Property Laws to sustain and make an impact in the international market.

CONCLUSION

The case of Kolhapuri Chappals and Prada is not just a matter of fashion, it is a reflection of a larger, recurring pattern of cultural appropriation, where indigenous knowledge and traditional craftsmanship are used for profit without fair recognition or compensation. While legal tools like Geographical Indications and design protection exist, they remain underutilized or limited in scope. Merely giving credit is not enough. What is urgently needed is a framework that ensures ethical collaboration, benefit-sharing, and legal safeguards to empower artisans and protect India’s rich cultural heritage. It is time we shift from being mere originators of global trends to rightful beneficiaries of our own traditions. Because if it is your tag, you should have the profit.