This article is authored by Abhiruchi Kumari, a fourth year B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s) student at the National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam.

The Prada Spring/Summer 2026 Menswear Show sparked debate in India when models walked the runway wearing sandals that bore an uncanny resemblance to Kolhapuri chappals. What unsettled many was not merely the similarity in design but the familiar global pattern: cultural heritage is borrowed, rebranded as avant-garde, and showcased on elite platforms, while the communities who preserve and perfect these crafts are left invisible. In this case, centuries of tradition were reintroduced to the world as an “experimental” Prada design, without acknowledgement, context, or compensation for the original creators.

The controversy deepened when reports emerged that the sandals could retail for over $1200. Although Prada later clarified that the footwear was not yet available for sale, the incident raised serious concerns about cultural appropriation, intellectual property rights, and the commodification of traditional knowledge.

This was not an isolated incident. Global fashion houses have repeatedly mined indigenous and traditional art forms, from embroidery to weaving, stripping them of cultural meaning in the process. The issue goes beyond aesthetics—it reflects questions of ownership, moral rights, and justice. When traditions like the Kolhapuri chappal are paraded on Milan’s runways, the debate is not about fashion innovation but about the erasure of artisans whose livelihoods depend on these crafts.

Background: What Makes a Kolhapuri, a Kolhapuri?

Kolhapuri sandals, or Kolhapuris as they’re commonly known, are traditional handcrafted leather chappals that trace their origins to the city of Kolhapur in Maharashtra. These sandals are distinctive for their open-toed design, intricate leatherwork, and sturdy yet elegant construction. They’re often made without any nails, using vegetable-tanned leather, and sometimes braided or stitched with decorative threads.

But Kolhapuris are not just footwear, they’re a legacy. For generations, artisans in Kolhapur and neighboring districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka have been crafting these sandals by hand, using techniques passed down through families. It’s not just the style that makes them special, but the cultural and geographical identity tied to them.

Recognising the craftsmanship and regional significance, Geographical Indication (GI) Tags for Kolhapuri chappals were granted in 2018. The rights were issued jointly to:

• Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation (LIDCOM) in Maharashtra, and
• Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Development Corporation (LIDKAR) in Karnataka.

These government-backed bodies now hold the authority to represent and protect the use of the term Kolhapuri in commerce.

What Is a GI Tag and Why It Matters Here?

A Geographical Indication (GI) Tag is a form of intellectual property protection granted under India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.  It’s used to identify goods that originate from a specific geographical region and possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially linked to that location. Therefore, a GI tag ensures that a product like Kolhapuri chappals can only be marketed under that name if it’s actually made in the designated districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka using traditional techniques.

So, when a global brand like Prada makes sandals that look like Kolhapuris but doesn’t use the name or mention their origin, it may not actually break GI law. But it does raise serious ethical and legal questions about cultural appropriation, misattribution, and the commercial invisibility of traditional artisans.

Did Prada Violate the Law?

The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy underscores a deeper legal dilemma: striking the delicate balance between inspiration and appropriation, and between preserving cultural identity and preventing its commercial exploitation.

From a legal standpoint, Prada has not violated any Indian law, since the sandals featured in the show were never labeled as ‘Kolhapuris,’ nor is there any evidence of Prada using the term ‘Kolhapuri’ in its marketing or branding.

This matters because India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, gives exclusive rights only over the use of the name “Kolhapuri” for sandals produced in the notified regions. The GI tag protects the name, not the look or design of the product. So, as long as Prada didn’t call them Kolhapuris, it does not infringe the GI registration.

However, this doesn’t mean Prada is entirely off the hook. There are still significant concerns from both a moral and policy-based legal perspective.

Brand Accountability: Prada’s Limited Response

As the backlash gathered momentum, Prada eventually responded not with a press conference or apology, but with a quiet, carefully worded Instagram post.

In the post, the luxury fashion house acknowledged that the sandals featured in the Milan show were “inspired by traditional Indian footwear made in Kolhapur and some parts of Karnataka.” They added that the designs were part of a “development collection” and were not yet being sold commercially. Prada also expressed interest in possibly working with local artisans in the future, hinting at collaboration or sourcing opportunities down the line. However, the statement stopped short of a formal apology or commitment to credit or compensate the communities that keep the Kolhapuri tradition alive.

For many, the response felt like damage control, a step meant to calm the storm, rather than fully engaging with the deeper concerns of cultural misappropriation and lack of recognition. While it acknowledged the source of inspiration, it didn’t quite address the issue of profiting off a traditional design without sharing the benefit.

Beyond GI: Can Design or Trademark Law Step In?

The bigger question is: can artisans or governments go further and protect the design itself?

Yes, potentially. There are two main legal routes:

• Designs Act, 2000 (India)

This Act protects the visual features of a product: its shape, configuration, ornamentation, etc. If a particular Kolhapuri sandal design had been registered, Prada’s version might be considered design infringement. However, most traditional crafts are not registered by individual artisans or cooperatives under this law due to a lack of awareness, access, or resources.

• Trade Marks Act, 1999 – “Trade Dress”

Trade dress protection can apply to the overall visual identity of a product, its look and feel, if it’s distinctive and associated with a particular source. If Kolhapuris had acquired this kind of recognition in the fashion market, and their visual identity had been formally registered or proven to be inherently distinctive, this could be another legal shield.

But again, the law requires proactive steps from the rightsholders: registrations, proofs of distinctiveness, and in many cases, litigation. Traditional artisans are rarely in a position to take this route.

The Role of the State and Collectives

The backlash from state governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka, and the letters sent by the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce to Prada, show a growing awareness that governments and artisan cooperatives must become more proactive. Their intervention, though not backed by a specific legal enforcement mechanism in this case, carried symbolic and political weight.

While Prada may have stayed on the right side of the law, it certainly crossed into ethically questionable territory. The incident has sparked important conversations, not just about IP protection, but about cultural respect, recognition, and the legal invisibility of traditional artisans in the global market. If anything, this controversy highlights an urgent need to rethink how IP law can evolve to protect not just products, but the people and heritage behind them.

Conclusion: Beyond the Catwalk – What Comes Next

The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy may have started on a Milan runway, but it has since sparked real-world ripple effects both legally and culturally. In a promising turn, the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) has confirmed that discussions are underway for a formal meeting with Prada, exploring potential collaboration with local artisans and sustainable sourcing mechanisms. If successful, it could mark a rare moment where a global fashion house engages directly with the traditional communities whose craft inspired their designs.

On the legal front, the matter has escalated to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) being filed in the Bombay High Court by a group of artisans and activist lawyers, where they have urged the government to take concrete steps to protect indigenous designs from being commercially co-opted without credit or benefit-sharing. The petition argues that while GI tags exist, they remain toothless without broader enforcement and awareness mechanisms, especially when international appropriation is involved.

What this moment demands is more than just brand statements or symbolic outrage. It calls for a systemic change in how we value and legally protect cultural heritage. Recognition must go beyond admiration; it must translate into attribution, collaboration, and fair compensation.