This article is authored by Sunidhi Khabya a third-year B.A.LL.B. (Hon’s) student at the National Law University, Jodhpur.

1.  Introduction

When tradition walks the runway, it deserves more than just applause, it deserves recognition, protection and a fair share of the profit. When luxury fashion house Prada unveiled its summer collection, no one expected a pair of approximately 1.2 lakh rupees leather sandals to ignite an international controversy. But the Indian netizens soon realised a striking resemblance to the traditional Kohlapuri chappals, and the backlash was immediate.

What followed is a clash between couture and culture, raising serious questions about intellectual property, geographical indications and cultural appropriation. The Kohlapuris, originally handcrafted by generations of artisans in Maharashtra and Karnataka, hold a GI tag under the Indian law. Yet, a global brand used an uncannily similar design without proper acknowledgment or credit.

The controversy finds its roots in the unauthorised use of Kolhapuri chappal designs which are registered as a geographical indication in India for the local communities residing in parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka.

This blog breaks down the Kolhapuri-Prada issue and explores the legal loopholes and cultural complexities, throwing light on what this controversy means for the future of ethical fashion.

2. What are Kohlapuris?

Long before runways, Kolhapuri clad feets have walked the streets of India since the 13th century. They have been a staple in Indian Men’s fashion since centuries. These open-toed slippers with their intricate braid-like designs have been crafted by generations of artisan families covering eight districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka.

What sets them apart is not just aesthetic. Each pair is made using vegan leather, treated with vegetable-based dyes and age-old methods that avoid the chemical mess of fast fashion tanning. No chappal is the same, the design is not just stylish, but also sustainable and deeply traditional.

Recognising the cultural value of this craft, Kolhapuri chappals were granted a Geographical indication tag in 2019, under the Geographical Indication of Goods Act, 1999. The tag ensures that only the products originating from specified districts can be marketed as ‘kolhapuri’.

However the GI tag protects this authenticity domestically, it doesn’t safeguard the design from foreign brands operating outside Indian jurisdiction. This is exactly where the controversy raises alarm, the need of the hour is to push for cross-border protection rather than appropriation of traditional handicrafts.

3. Prada’s Sandal Scandal

Almost instantly after the runway, netizens pointed out the obvious: Prada’s sandals looked exactly like Kolhapuri chappals, down to every little detail including the iconic earthy tones. But there was no mention of ‘Kolhapuri’ anywhere, no acknowledgment to their Indian origin and absolutely no collaboration or credit to the generational artisans who have handcrafted these sandals for centuries.

The social media backlash was swift and brutal, as millions of posts demanding Prada to acknowledge the similarity began trending. Memes applauding the ‘Italian invention’ of a chappal worn by every household in India went viral. And slowly, anger turned into activism.

Then came the legal fallout, a PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court seeking urgent judicial intervention to protect the GI rights of Kohlapuris.  The petitioners accused Prada of monetising over cultural appropriation and demanded an immediate apology, compensation and most importantly, the recognition for original creators.

Prada finally acknowledged being “inspired by traditional indian handcrafted footwear with a centuries-old heritage.” But the controversy had already arisen and has now escalated to a full-blown debate on GI tags, Intellectual property and cultural appropriation by the west.

4. The Ethical & Legal Angle

While the Indian court might lack jurisdiction to penalize Prada directly in the issue, the PIL filed  in the Bombay High Court pushes for an official statement of recognition, compensation to the artisan community and international dialogue on GI protection. This controversy reignites the debate over international treaties such as TRIPS Agreement which provide limited GI protection but still lacks enforceability across the jurisdictions and regional treaties like the Lisbon Agreement which only applies to a limited number of countries. This has raised global concerns over protection of intellectual and cultural property, without any implementable global mechanism as the enforcement becomes ineffective and expensive.

While the internet continues to cry “chappal chor”, the reality is disappointing. At the heart of the controversy lies the Geographical Indications of Goods act, giving Kolhapuris a GI tag. But the issue is that Prada never used the name ‘Kolhapuri’, they merely made sandals that looked like them; this is not protected by a GI tag. Further it is imperative to understand that the GI tag given by the ‘Indian government’  is not sufficient in the international market. For international safeguard, a Patent must be registered. The MACCIA president confirmed this recently in a statement, as the authority decided to patent the chappals.

So in all technicality, Prada may not have broken any law, it has just benefitted from a global legal loophole and used a traditional design without acknowledgement, collaboration or legal consequences. And this is exactly what the law needs to curb. India needs to push for an enforceable international GI protection mechanism globally.

An immediate legal action taken in this regard should involve formation of new provisions in already recognised treaties such as the TRIPS Agreement, Lisbon Agreement and WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), provisions regarding geographical indications should be made global and not just local. India must lobby for GI protection and bilateral agreements with major countries. Furthermore, such appropriation by global brands should be taken seriously, as they have the power to influence a worldwide audience.

5. Cultural Appropriation or Appreciation?

Fashion has always been and forever will be inspired by culture. But there’s a fine line between appreciation and appropriation. This sandal scandal is a textbook example of how luxury brands tread the fine line, and sometimes fall over the wrong side.

While cultural appreciation involves understanding, acknowledging and respectfully collaborating with the source community, ensuring that credit and compensation is given where due, cultural appropriation on the flip side is when the external actor borrows cultural elements, strips them of their origin and profits while the originating community remains without credit or compensation.

In Prada’s case, the design was clearly inspired from Kolhapuri chappals, a symbol of Indian culture. Yet, there was not even a single reference to India, no collaboration with artisans and no compensation to the communities whose work was being rebranded.

This is not just about footwear though, it’s also about the power dynamics. When a high-end fashion house gets ‘inspired’ and sells a centuries-old design for more than 1 lakh rupees, while its original artisans who have worked on their craft all their lives get just between Rupees 250 – 400 per pair. It stops being inspiration and instead becomes a method of erasing the original art.

When we compare this to what Louis Vuitton and Pharrell Williams did in their India inspired show in the 2025 summer/spring collection, the difference becomes clear. From AR Rahman’s music to the set handcrafted in India, overt credit was given wherever due.

The Prada incident by contrast is an example of the west cherry-picking the Indian aesthetics and presenting them as novelties. The worst part however is that this incident is not new, nor is it a rare occasion.

6. The positive aftermath: The Global Spotlight

Amid all the controversy and legal debates, a positive consequence however has arisen for the craftsman. The global traction that the issue has gained has actually increased the popularity of Kolhapuri chappals. “I think they have done us a favour by taking our brand and making it global” said a microindustry owner who produces the footwear. He has also shown interest in working with the fashion house even at an amount of 10% of the selling price of Prada’s sandals. 

7. Conclusion

The Kolhapuri-Prada controversy has done more than just stir rage online. It has also cracked open a crucial conversation about recognition, compensation and cultural appropriation in the fashion industry. While luxury brands may draw ‘inspiration’ from various cultures, the line between inspiration and exploitation is very thin and must be drawn with caution. In this case, Prada might not have broken any law, but it certainly broke the trust of the artisans, the community and the ethical principles that everyone strives to follow.

This scandal has again brought to light the lack of internationally enforceable geographical indicator and intellectual property laws. The world doesn’t just need fashion-forward brands but also fashion responsible ones. Because when the devil wears Kolhapuri, it’s not just a fashion statement, but a wake-up call.