Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandals Controversy: Lessons for GI Protection in India

In June 2025 the international luxury brand Prada showcased open-toe leather sandals at Milan Fashion Week that looked nearly identical to India’s traditional Kolhapuri chappals. The sandals, priced at over one lakh rupees per pair, drew outrage from artisans in Kolhapur (Maharashtra) and Karnataka. These communities had been granted a Geographical Indication (GI) for Kolhapuri chappals in 2019, recognizing the craft’s specific origin. Local craftsmen and a BJP MP accused Prada of cultural appropriation for using the design without credit or benefit to the source community. The incident reignited debates on whether a GI tag can effectively safeguard a cultural product when global brands profit from it. The controversy highlights tensions between preserving traditional heritage and global fashion commerce.

What happened in the Prada-Kolhapuri controversy?

• Luxury brand inspiration: In June 2025 Prada’s menswear show in Milan featured sandals that unmistakably resembled Kolhapuri chappals, the handcrafted braided leather shoes of Maharashtra/Karnataka. The Italian label did not acknowledge the design’s origin.
  • These Prada sandals were priced at over ₹1 lakh per pair – far above the ₹500–1,000 a local artisan earns for an authentic Kolhapuri pair.
• Artisan protest: Kolhapur shoemakers (often from Dalit cobbler communities) and local leaders immediately protested. They viewed Prada’s actions as cultural and commercial appropriation that violated the GI protection granted to their chappals. A delegation of artisans led by MP Dhananjay Mahadik (from Kolhapur) met Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on June 27, 2025, to demand action.
  • They urged that the Kolhapuri identity be credited, local craftsmen be given orders, and revenue be shared, so the traditional brand could reach global markets.
• Government and legal response: The Maharashtra government took up the issue with the Centre. The Sant Rohidas Leather Industries Dev. Corporation (LIDCOM, Maharashtra) – co-holder of the Kolhapuri GI tag – began exploring legal options. Plans for a PIL (public interest litigation) and appeals to the commerce ministry were mooted.
  • Officials noted that using the protected name “Kolhapuri” without authorization is banned, though actual design copying is harder to stop legally.
• Prada’s reaction: Facing backlash, Prada acknowledged the Indian inspiration in its sandals and committed to dialogue with local artisans. The company emphasized responsible design practices and said it was in touch with Maharashtra’s commerce chamber on this topic.
  • Prada reportedly removed images of the sandals from its website following the controversy.
• Cultural impact: The episode became widely known in India. Social media amplified the artisans’ plight, framing the sandals as cultural theft. The term “Prada paradox” even trended, highlighting how a centuries-old craft appeared on a global runway with no recognition of its roots.

Why was this case considered cultural appropriation?

• Lack of credit: Prada used a distinctively Indian craft design without mentioning Kolhapur or its makers. This fits the definition of cultural appropriation, where elements of a traditionally marginalized culture are adopted by a dominant culture (here, a Western fashion brand) without consent or attribution.
  • Local artisans noted that while Prada’s sandal design was “unmistakably Kolhapuri,” the brand gave no nod to the community, treating the craft as its own novelty.
• Economic injustice: The price gap underscored the injustice: artisans make Kolhapuris by hand for a few hundred rupees, yet Prada priced its lookalikes at over ₹100,000.
  • Critics pointed out that luxury profits here came at the expense of impoverished craftsmen, who receive neither recognition nor fair compensation.
• Heritage and identity: Kolhapuri chappals carry deep cultural significance. Dating back to the 12th century, they are woven into local identity and history.
  • Treating such a culturally rich item as a mere fashion trend disrespects its origins. For the Kolhapur community (including Dalit cobblers who traditionally make them), the craft is part of their living heritage, not a generic design.
• Pattern of exploitation: Observers noted that Prada’s act was part of a broader trend where global fashion houses borrow indigenous designs. Similar controversies (e.g. French designers using Mexican embroidery) have repeatedly raised concerns.
  • These patterns prompt debate on ethical consumption and the need for colonial-style power structures in fashion to be dismantled. The Prada case became a flashpoint in calls to decolonize fashion and respect the rights of artisan communities.

Where and when did the controversy unfold?

• Origin of the craft: Kolhapuri chappals originate from Kolhapur district in western Maharashtra and adjacent areas in Karnataka. The GI tag (granted in late 2018) officially covers eight districts across both states, designating them as the authentic source of Kolhapuri footwear.
  • This region has a long tradition of leatherworking; the sandals are a regional emblem of Kolhapur’s cultural heritage.
• Timing: The issue came to light in June 2025. Prada’s sandal was first shown at Milan Fashion Week on June 22, 2025. Within days, Indian media reported that the design mimicked Kolhapuri chappals without attribution.
  • By June 27, 2025, Maharashtra artisans and officials were publicly protesting. The timing coincided with a global push on intellectual property issues (India’s GI policy summit was earlier that year).
• Local and international venues: The runway was in Milan (Italy), but repercussions were strongest in India. In Kolhapur and Mumbai, artisans and trade bodies organized, and the state capital (Mumbai) became the hub of government response.
  • In New Delhi, the commerce ministry and IP offices were alerted. Meanwhile, internationally, fashion and IP observers took note of the dispute as part of a wider conversation on cultural rights.
• Historical context: Though the flashpoint was 2025, the background spans years. The Kolhapuri chappal craft gained wider IP recognition when it received the GI tag in 2019, the same year other traditional crafts were being protected globally. This GI milestone set the stage for interpreting Prada’s act as a violation of those rights.

Who are the stakeholders in this issue?

• Artisan communities: Primary stakeholders are the Kolhapuri cobbler families (largely from Dalit and Charmakar communities) who have made these sandals for generations. It is estimated that 15,000–20,000 artisans nationwide still produce Kolhapuri chappals, though the number has declined.
  • These craftsmen often work in rural clusters with minimal technology. They lack higher education and market access, yet they hold the traditional knowledge and skills at the heart of the product.
• Producer organizations: The Kolhapuri chappal GI is co-owned by two cooperatives: LIDCOM in Maharashtra and LIDKAR in Karnataka. They register authorized makers and defend the GI rights. Currently only about 95 artisans/groups are registered to use the GI, which makes enforcement a challenge given thousands more unregistered.
  • These bodies coordinate with government schemes (like providing GI logos, organizing fairs) and now negotiate on behalf of the community for international protection.
• Political and government figures: Maharashtra’s Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis (in office 2025) engaged with protesting artisans. BJP MP Dhananjay Mahadik, from Kolhapur, took the lead in raising the issue at state and national levels.
  • At the national level, India’s Commerce and Industry Ministry (overseeing IP laws) and the Controller General of Patents & Trademarks (CGPDTM) are involved. Local officials (industry development corporations, marketing boards) also have stakes in protecting state handicrafts.
• Prada and fashion industry: The Italian luxury brand Prada is central. Its designers and management hold commercial interests in the sandals. Other global fashion houses (and their consumers) are indirect stakeholders, since precedents here affect future sourcing of designs.
  • Fashion industry associations (like the Milan Chamber of Commerce, Indian fashion councils) are watching, as ethical sourcing becomes a reputational issue.
• Legal and trade bodies: IP lawyers, NGOs and cultural heritage experts are stakeholders in how the law interprets GI rights. They advise on whether actions like Prada’s constitute infringement. Trade negotiators look at GI protection in trade deals (e.g. EU-India agreements).
• Consumers and public: Indian and global customers of high-end fashion take an interest in authenticity narratives. Public opinion (fueled by media and social posts) pressured Prada and governments to respond. Essentially, anyone concerned with cultural heritage or ethical business is a stakeholder now.

How does a GI tag factor into this controversy?

• GI protection scope: The Geographical Indication (GI) granted to Kolhapuri chappals in 2019 legally links the product’s name to its region. Under India’s GI Act (1999), only products made in that region by approved methods can use the name “Kolhapuri chappal.”
  • The GI covers eight districts (four in Maharashtra, four in Karnataka) known for the craft. It ensures that any chappal labeled “Kolhapuri” comes from those areas.
• Legal limits: Importantly, GI law primarily protects the name and origin, not the physical design. So in principle, Prada didn’t violate GI rules by copying the sandal’s style as long as it did not label it “Kolhapuri” or claim the origin.
  • In India, using a GI-tagged name without authorization is illegal, but design imitation itself isn’t explicitly prohibited by the GI Act.
• Domestic enforcement: In India, registered GI owners (LIDCOM/LIDKAR) have the right to sue infringers who use the protected name. Mahadik’s letter even cites GI regulations. However, enforcement within India only covers misuse of the term or GI logo on products or invoices.
  • Artisans hope GI status will bolster their claim to international orders and recognition. For example, they argue that if Prada acknowledges the Kolhapuri GI, local makers could legally produce the sandals, thus benefiting from the brand’s global reach.
• International reach: A key issue is that GI rights have limited global reach. Unless the Kolhapuri GI is registered abroad or covered in trade treaties, Prada (an Italian company) may not be legally bound by it.
  • Indian authorities note that without using the name, Prada’s design doesn’t breach India’s GI law. They suggest that Kolhapuri stakeholders could apply for trademarks on names/logos overseas to gain protection internationally.
• Awareness and implementation: Authorities admit that many artisans and officials are not fully aware of GI’s potential. With only 95 authorized users in a craft of ~20,000, the GI system’s impact is diluted. This lack of awareness was cited as a gap as the controversy unfolded.
  • Nonetheless, the GI tag is significant evidence of the sandal’s cultural ownership. Protesters argue that ignoring the GI undermines the purpose of the law, which was to preserve such products from unauthorized use.

What is the significance of GI tags for traditional crafts?

• Cultural recognition: A GI tag formally acknowledges a product’s heritage and its link to a region. It highlights the unique craftsmanship of local communities. For Kolhapuri chappals, GI status affirms that these sandals are not generic fashion items but a protected part of India’s intangible heritage.
  • This recognition can help instill pride in artisans and makes the craft visible on a national/international stage.
• Economic uplift: GI tags often translate into better market value and export demand. For example, products like Darjeeling tea, Basmati rice and Mysore silk saw global demand increase after GI recognition. A study even found GIs significantly boost agri-exports.
  • In India, the number of GI tags grew from around 450 in 2024 to 643 by early 2025. States like Uttar Pradesh (79 GI items) and Tamil Nadu (69) lead with diverse products, showing how GI can promote regional specialties.
• Quality assurance: A GI tag is like a seal of authenticity. It assures consumers of authentic origin and traditional quality. This can deter cheap knock-offs and preserve market trust in the product.
  • For instance, GI-protected Darjeeling tea cannot be sold under that name unless it’s real Darjeeling. Similarly, only authorized Kolhapur artisans could legitimately label sandals “Kolhapuri”.
• Rural development: By granting collective ownership of a product’s identity, GIs can empower entire communities. All eligible producers within the region can use the GI to brand their goods, theoretically expanding livelihoods.
  • Governments see GIs as rural development tools. In Jan 2025 India aimed to have 10,000 GI products by 2030, reflecting their importance. GI schemes often include training, marketing support and artisan clusters (e.g. the Tamil Nadu agricultural board co-applies for GI with local farmers).
• Preservation of traditional knowledge: GIs tie economic benefit to heritage. If global consumers pay premium prices for authentic GI products, communities have an incentive to keep old techniques alive. They safeguard biodiversity and sustainable practices inherent in many traditional crafts.
• Community resilience: In the Kolhapuri case, the GI was meant to shield artisans from being swamped by mass-produced imitations. More broadly, a strong GI allows negotiating power: artisans can negotiate better terms with buyers or demand collaboration, as they did with Prada.
  • GI tags therefore bridge cultural policy and intellectual property law, giving a voice to tradition within legal frameworks.

What are the limitations and challenges of GI tags?

• Name vs design: GI law in India protects only the use of the product name (e.g. “Kolhapuri chappal”), not the visual design itself. Prada’s case highlighted this gap: copying the style without using the protected name did not legally breach GI regulations.
  • An IP expert noted that unless the name “Kolhapuri” is used or origin implied, the GI rules offer no recourse. This means aesthetic features can be exploited freely.
• Territorial limitation: GI protection is primarily territorial. India’s GI Act applies within Indian jurisdiction. An Indian GI has no automatic force in Italy, the US, or elsewhere.
  • Unless foreign laws or treaties recognize the GI, international companies can copy designs abroad. In Prada’s case, LIDCOM/K told they would need to use diplomatic or trademark routes to engage overseas.
• Low registration: Many traditional artisans fail to register as GI users. In Kolhapur’s case, only 95 out of thousands of artisans are officially authorized to use the GI. This fragmentation weakens collective enforcement.
  • If only a tiny fraction hold legal rights, it’s hard for the GI-holder bodies to monitor or take action against misuse on behalf of all.
• Enforcement hurdles: Even within India, proving a GI infringement can be costly and complex. Artisans often lack legal resources to file lawsuits. International litigation (against a foreign company) is even harder and untested for GIs.
  • The process of policing GI tags requires vigilance at borders and online platforms, which is challenging given resource constraints.
• Awareness deficit: Officials admit low awareness about GI benefits among producers. If communities don’t fully understand GI rights, they may not leverage them effectively.
  • For example, Maharashtra’s industry department noted that many artisans didn’t know what GI registration offers, so the full protective value wasn’t utilized.
• Global legal gaps: No binding international framework currently covers design or cultural property. The WTO’s TRIPS agreement mandates GI recognition for certain products (like wines/spirits, and later all goods), but it still leaves design imitation in a grey area.
  • As Indian experts point out, unless trademark, copyright or patent is invoked, copycat designs slip through. WIPO discussions on traditional cultural expressions have not yet produced enforceable rules.
• Limited reach of remedies: The GI registry or local corporations can only penalize use of the GI name. They cannot directly stop sales of an unbranded copy. Thus the protective frame called for often remains a mere proposal without teeth.
• Market pressures: In practice, artisans might undercut or fail due to cheaper imitations, regardless of GI. The global fashion market values novelty and brand narrative, which can override the older GI-legal mechanisms.

What strategies could prevent cultural misappropriation?

• International cooperation: India can push for stronger global norms on traditional cultural expressions. For instance, negotiating GI clauses in trade agreements (like the proposed EU-India FTA) can extend some protection abroad. Amending TRIPS or creating a sui generis treaty for folklore could help curb design theft.
• Trademark complements: Artisans might proactively trademark regional names or logos internationally. IP lawyers suggest that registering “Kolhapuri” or artisan brands as trademarks abroad would give exclusive rights there. This combined GI–trademark approach can fill jurisdictional gaps.
• Brand collaboration: A recommended solution is ethical engagement by designers. Luxury brands could form partnerships with artisan groups (e.g. licensing deals or co-branding). If Prada had sourced Kolhapuri sandals directly from Gujarat’s co-op or hired a designer from Kolhapur, the outcome would have been collaborative.
  • Formal mechanisms (like Memoranda of Understanding) between fashion houses and local artisans/cooperatives can ensure profit-sharing and recognition.
• Policy support: Governments should reinforce GI enforcement. This includes simplifying GI-user registration, offering subsidies or legal aid for GI enforcement actions, and educating artisans on IP rights.
  • The Maharashtra letter even calls for a state-level protective framework and financial assistance for GI misuse cases.
• Market development: Create dedicated channels for GI products. For example, promoting Kolhapuri chappals on platforms like the Government e-Marketplace or at international expos. Certification labels (GI logos) should be used prominently so consumers know they are buying authentic crafts.
  • State tourism boards could highlight Kolhapuri chappal villages, turning them into craft tourism destinations.
• Consumer awareness: Educate consumers (especially fashion buyers) about the origin of crafts. Campaigns can raise the prestige of authentic GI goods, reducing demand for imitations. Boycotts or social media shaming of brands misusing cultural motifs can be powerful.
• Legal reform and support: Consider expanding IP laws to cover design elements or impose moral-rights-style credit requirements. The government could clarify via judicial precedent that blatant copying of a GI craft, even without the name, is an “implied” misuse.
• Capacity building: Invest in artisan development: training in business, digital marketing and design innovation. If artisans can adapt the craft for modern markets, they strengthen their position. For instance, using anti-theft tags or product tracking (blockchain) is being piloted for some GI goods.
• Sustainable practices: Address related challenges (like the Maharashtra leather ban affecting chappal production). By ensuring artisans have quality materials and infrastructure, the authenticity and competitiveness of GI products is preserved, making them more viable.
• Cultural diplomacy: Listing Kolhapuri craft on UNESCO’s intangible heritage list (even if not legally binding) would raise global recognition. Regular fashion week showcases of authentic Kolhapuri work (sponsored by trade bodies) could create demand without misappropriation.

How do GI tags compare with other intellectual property protections?

• GI tags vs trademarks/copyright: Geographical Indications and traditional IP rights serve different purposes:
  • Scope and ownership: A GI tag is collective – any qualifying producer from the region may use it. In contrast, a trademark is exclusive to its registrant (a company) and identifies a brand or source. Copyright protects creative works (music, writing) and belongs to the creator.
  • Protection focus: GI ties a product to a locale (e.g. Champagne, Darjeeling tea) ensuring only goods from that place can claim the name. Trademarks focus on protecting logos/slogans (like “Nike”) or brand names, preventing consumer confusion. Copyright covers artistic expressions.
  • Duration: GI protection can effectively be perpetual, as long as the product exists and standards are met. Trademarks last 10 years (renewable indefinitely), while copyright in India lasts the author’s life plus 60 years.
  • Use rights: With a GI tag, all approved local producers share the right collectively. Under a trademark, only the owner (and licensees) may use it; unauthorized use is infringement. Copyright similarly prohibits any copying without permission.
  • International reach: Trademarks can be registered in multiple countries and are enforceable globally (via international filings). GIs require separate registration or mutual recognition per jurisdiction. Copyright is protected by international conventions (Berne) automatically across signatory countries.
  • Examples: GI examples include “Champagne” (only wine from France’s Champagne region) or “Mysore silk”. Trademark examples are “Coca-Cola” or “Apple” logo. Copyright examples include a novel text or musical composition.
• Role in this context: The Kolhapuri case shows the difference. The GI tag protects the name “Kolhapuri chappal” in India, but Prada’s design slipstreamed around it by not using the name. A trademark strategy (if Kolhapur producers had one for the name globally) might have offered extra protection, whereas GIs alone could not stop the design imitation in the Italian market.
• Summary table:

Conclusion

The Prada-Kolhapuri episode underscores that while GI tags are valuable tools for recognizing and promoting traditional crafts, they have clear limits. GI protection succeeded in formally tying Kolhapuri chappals to their region and raising global awareness of the issue, but could not legally stop the sandal’s design from being emulated abroad. The controversy shows that preventing cultural misappropriation requires more than a label – it needs coordinated legal, economic and ethical measures. For UPSC aspirants, this case highlights the complex interplay between intellectual property rights, cultural heritage policy and community welfare. Moving forward, stronger international IP frameworks, proactive brand-artisan partnerships and robust domestic support (through GI awareness and enforcement) will be needed to ensure that local artisan communities truly benefit when their heritage enters global markets. Only then can heritage crafts be protected and celebrated rather than exploited.

Q. Evaluate the effectiveness of Geographical Indication tags in safeguarding traditional crafts from exploitation. (250 words)