From the Runway to the Courtroom: Prada, Kolhapuri Chappals, and the Global Test for Geographical Indications

A pair of sandals walked down a Milan runway and straight into the centre of a global intellectual property debate. When luxury fashion house Prada featured footwear in its latest collection that was unmistakably inspired by the iconic Indian Kolhapuri chappal, it ignited a firestorm of criticism. The incident has become a powerful case study on the intersection of cultural heritage, international commerce, and the legal boundaries of Geographical Indications (GIs).

For brand owners, designers, and artisans, this controversy offers critical lessons on the power and the limits of IP protection in a connected world.

What is a Geographical Indication (GI)?

Before dissecting the controversy, it's essential to understand the specific IP right at its core. A Geographical Indication is a sign used on products that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that are due to that origin.

Think of "Champagne." Wineries worldwide can produce sparkling wine, but only those from the Champagne region of France can legally label their product "Champagne." The GI protects the name, not the method of making sparkling wine. It assures consumers of a certain quality and origin, and it protects the economic interests of the producers in that region.

In 2019, the "Kolhapuri Chappal" was awarded a GI tag in India, protecting footwear made by traditional artisans across eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The tag recognises the unique heritage, hand-crafting process, and cultural significance tied to that specific region.

The Core of the Conflict: Inspiration vs. Infringement

The Prada issue forces us to ask a crucial question: Where does inspiration end and infringement begin? The answer lies in the distinction between a product's design and its name.

Action	Is it a GI Infringement?	The Legal Rationale
Creating a sandal inspired by the Kolhapuri design (e.g., a T-strap, open-toed leather sandal).	Generally, No.	A GI tag protects the name linked to the origin ("Kolhapuri"), not the general style or design itself. Traditional designs are often considered part of the public domain and cannot be monopolised unless protected by a separate design patent, which is rare for heritage crafts. Prada initially referred to its product as "Toe Ring Sandals," carefully avoiding the protected name.
Selling a sandal made outside the designated Indian districts and labelling it a "Kolhapuri Chappal".	Yes, a clear infringement.	This is precisely what the GI Act is designed to prevent. Using the protected name on a product that does not meet the origin and production requirements is a direct violation of the GI holder's rights within the jurisdiction where the GI is registered (in this case, India).

This distinction is why the initial outcry was framed around cultural appropriation—the ethical issue of a luxury brand profiting from a traditional design without acknowledging or benefiting the source community, rather than a straightforward legal infringement.

The Global Challenge: IP Rights are Territorial

The Prada case also exposes the most significant challenge for GI holders: intellectual property rights are territorial. An Indian GI tag is legally enforceable within India. It does not automatically grant protection in Italy, the United States, or any other country.

To secure international protection, a GI must be registered in each country or through international agreements like the World Trade Organisation's TRIPS Agreement or the Lisbon Agreement for the Protection of Appellations of Origin. This is a complex and expensive process.

Without such international registration, a foreign company can, in its own country, legally create a Kolhapuri-style sandal and sell it, provided they don't try to import it into India under the protected name. This leaves artisans and their legal advocates to fight battles on the grounds of ethics and public pressure, as seen with Prada, rather than on clear-cut legal violations abroad.

Key Takeaways for Your Business

This high-profile case provides actionable insights for all businesses operating in the creative and manufacturing sectors:

1. For Artisans & Heritage Communities: Securing a GI is a vital first step, but it is not the final one. It is crucial to develop a broader IP strategy that includes exploring international registration, building a strong brand identity around the GI, and creating clear guidelines for licensing and collaboration.

   
   

2. For Designers & Brands: The line between inspiration and appropriation is increasingly scrutinised by consumers. Due diligence is paramount. Before launching a product inspired by a cultural heritage, ask:

   • What is the origin of this design?

   • Is it protected by a GI or other IP right?

   • How can we ethically and transparently acknowledge the source?

   • Is there an opportunity for a respectful collaboration that benefits the artisan community?

Proactive and ethical engagement is not just good morals; it is a powerful risk mitigation strategy in today's market.

Conclusion

The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy is more than a fleeting headline. It is a landmark moment that highlights the growing need for stronger global frameworks to protect cultural heritage. While GIs are a powerful tool, their effectiveness depends on robust enforcement and a global understanding of their importance.

For businesses, the path forward requires a dual approach: a sharp understanding of the legal landscape of intellectual property and a deep respect for the cultural context in which they operate. Navigating this complex terrain successfully is the new hallmark of a truly global and responsible brand.