The luxury fashion brand Prada came under global scrutiny after it showcased sandals closely resembling the traditional Indian footwear ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’ in its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear show in Milan recently. The Prada sandals, priced at more than Rs. 1 Lakh gave no tribute or acknowledgment to the local artisans of the Kolhapuri chappals having history dating back to the 12 th -13 th century.
In the year 2019, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade marks (CGPDTM) granted Geographical Indication (GI) tag for Kolhapuris to 4 districts each in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The GI Tag is held by Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar
Development Corporation Limited of Maharashtra (LIDCOM) and the Dr. Babu Jagjeevan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation of Karnataka (LIDKAR). The Bombay HC on 16.07.2025 dismissed a PIL (Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire and Ors. vs.
Prada Group and Ors., PIL No. 72/2025) holding that the Petitioners had no locus standi to seek the reliefs of injunction and compensation as Section 21 of the G.I. Act indicates that the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement of GI vests with the registered proprietor. The
court held that it is not the case of the Petitioners that on account of social or economic background, the registered proprietors are incapable of agitating their own rights by exercising statutory remedies and hence a PIL is not maintainable. It further held that since
the registered proprietors are government organisations, they are established to look after the welfare of artisans involved in the leather footwear industry and the appropriate remedy is filing a suit. The dismissal of the PIL reiterates the importance of following statutory
procedure and need for registered proprietors to actively defend and promote their rights.

Interestingly, the Prada team recently visited Kolhapur and met local artisans and the local administration to review the entire process of manufacturing of the chappal up to its retail. There were discussions around the formation of a joint working group of Prada, Maharashtra
Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) and artisan bodies to ideate and drive long term engagement models. This could possibly mean many opportunities of collaboration for the local artisans who deserve recognition and monetary benefits for the
craft they have been perfecting for years altogether.

It is noteworthy that before this, another GI infringement dispute involved parties from different countries. The Scotch Whiskey Association filed a suit against J.K. Enterprises alleging infringement of its registered GI ‘Scotch Whiskey’. While the suit is still pending,
the Petitioner had filed a Misc. Petition in the Madhya Pradesh High Court which challenged the interim order passed by the trial court on an O7 R11 application which held that a suit for infringement of the Scotch Whisky GI is permissible only after impleading of ‘Authorised
User’ as mandated by Section 21 of the GI Act. The Hon’ble MP High court set aside the impugned order which partly allowed the interim application for rejection of the plaint and thereby reaffirmed the maintainability of the cross-border suit.

These cases highlight the growing relevance of GI in cross-border commercial and legal contexts. As traditional knowledge and handicrafts from India find their way into global markets, the role of courts in interpreting statutory protections under the GI Act also becomes
increasingly important.

by Aamna Khan