Prada’s ₹1.2 lakh Kolhapuri-inspired sandals have triggered a legal storm in the Bombay High Court, with a PIL demanding compensation and recognition for Indian artisans. The case raises critical questions on cultural appropriation, GI rights, and fair trade in global fashion.
The Bombay High Court will hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) launched by intellectual property rights campaigner Ganesh Hingmire, claiming monetary damages and accreditation for Indian craftsmen allegedly defrauded by international fashion house Prada. The PIL stems from complaints that Prada’s latest Milan catwalk collection featured shoes closely resembling Kolhapuri chappals, which have a Geographical Indication (GI) tag since 2019.
The petitioner says that Prada admitted that its leather flats were “inspired by Indian artisans” but only after much flak on social media and in private to a third party, not the artisans, GI Registry, or the Government of India. Hingmire alleges that the lack of an official public apology or any form of compensation indicates an effort to sidestep criticism rather than take responsibility.
The petition states that Kolhapuri chappals are not just shoes—but a symbol of culture with an intense public sentiment among the people of Maharashtra and Karnataka. Citing the GI status, the PIL states that Prada’s commercial exploitation of the design without giving attribution or benefit to the original craftsmen is tantamount to unjust enrichment and possible misappropriation of traditional intellectual property.
ALSO READ
Mr. Hingmire has asked the court to order a structured partnership between Prada and registered artisan groups, including co-branding, capacity-building programs, and revenue-sharing schemes to provide fair return and international visibility for traditional craftspeople. He explained, “It’s unrealistic and unfair to expect disorganized groups of artisans to bring separate suits against an international giant like Prada.”
The PIL further brings to light a broader trend of luxury fashion labels purportedly appropriating Indian craft traditions, pointing to Dior’s recent presentation of a mukaish-embroidered Lucknow coat without mention of the artisans. Prolific author Shobhaa De’s scathing comments and media coverage of the affair have been presented as supporting evidence.
While the case has caused mass public and political backing, lawyers are split. Senior advocate Ameet Naik said that a claim for infringement of the GI can be problematic, with Prada having the argument that it sells a generic flat sandal and is not falsely passed off as being of Indian origin. But Mr. Naik did agree that a passing-off action is legally tenable, but with likely evidence problems.
In reply to the storm, Karnataka Minister Priyank Kharge underscored the socio-economic rights of artisans in districts such as Athani, Nippani, and Chikkodi, who have long been making these signature chappals. “When world brands embrace our heritage, it is all the more necessary that our artisans are not just footnotes to the story—decent pay, fair recognition, and dignified livelihoods are the least they should get,” the Minister stated.
The court is likely to consider whether Prada’s conduct constitutes cultural appropriation and has legally-recognized consequences under Indian intellectual property and consumer protection laws, and whether court intervention can set the precedent for the protection of traditional artisans in the global marketplace.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.