Why Prada walks free

In the hushed, cobbled corridors of Milan Fashion Week, where Prada unveiled its Spring-Summer 2026 menswear collection, an ancient Indian silhouette silently walked the ramp. The luxury house presented leather flat sandals, uncannily evocative of the Kolhapuri chappal – a handcrafted marvel rooted in the towns of Kolhapur, Sangli, and Satara, and carrying with it not just leather and stitches, but centuries of cultural resonance.
Prada acknowledged the ‘inspiration’, but Indian artisans, policy-makers, and legal scholars have been left grappling with a harder question: is inspiration a euphemism for infringement, and is India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, enough to protect traditional treasures from global appropriation?

The GI Tag: A Cloak Without Armour?

Advertisement

The Geographical Indication (GI) tag granted to Kolhapuri chappals in 2018, through a joint application by Maharashtra’s LIDCOM and Karnataka’s LIDKAR, was celebrated as a moment of cultural restitution – an emblem of recognition for centuries-old artisanal craftsmanship rooted in eight districts. Yet, beneath the celebratory veneer lies a structural frailty: the GI tag, envisioned as a shield of authenticity, has little capacity to withstand the global currents of commercial imitation.

Defined under Section 2(e) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, a GI identifies products whose distinctive quality or reputation is essentially linked to their geographical origin. For Kolhapuri chappals, this encompasses caste-embedded leatherwork traditions, rural design vocabularies, and intergenerational know-how. However, while the GI confers symbolic and cultural affirmation, it lacks the juridical heft to deter or punish appropriation beyond India’s territorial limits.

This vulnerability stems from the very design of India’s GI regime. Unlike trademarks or patents, GI rights are non-assignable, non-transferable, and held in a fiduciary capacity by registered proprietors and authorised users under Sections 11 and 17. This model, though preserving communal ownership, lacks centralised control and the proactive enforcement mechanisms typical of corporate IP structures. It transforms cultural heritage into a public good caught within the confines of a private-law enforcement model – an inherently paradoxical legal architecture.

Enforcement under Section 22(1)(b) criminalises unauthorised use within India, but offers no remedy when infringement occurs abroad. This “jurisdictional disconnect” renders the GI Act impotent in the face of transnational appropriation, as evidenced by Prada’s alleged replication of the Kolhapuri design under European intellectual property regimes. Unless reciprocal treaties or foreign registrations are in place – a rarity in the current Indian framework – legal redress remains elusive.

Further complicating the scenario is the absence of automatic international GI protection, unlike the mechanisms available for patents or trademarks through the PCT or Madrid Protocol. Registration in India does not extend abroad unless separately pursued – a burdensome and costly process, largely inaccessible to marginalised artisan communities.

With over 600 registered GIs, India has yet to convert legal recognition into commercial empowerment or defensive strength. Lacking institutional support, artisans struggle even with domestic enforcement, let alone transnational litigation.

Thus, while the Kolhapuri chappal GI is a symbolic step toward cultural preservation, it remains a ceremonial cloak – visibly dignified yet functionally porous. Without substantive reform, India’s GI law risks offering prestige without protection, and identity without sovereignty.

TRIPS and the Mirage of Multilateral Protection

At first glance, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) appears to offer a multilateral framework for the protection of Geographical Indications (GIs), particularly through Articles 22 to 24, which mandate WTO members to provide legal means to prevent misleading use and acts of unfair competition. However, this promise of global protection proves more illusory than effective when applied to tangible disputes like Prada’s alleged appropriation of the Kolhapuri chappal.

The critical fault line lies in TRIPS’ uneven standard of protection. While Article 22 requires members to guard against deceptive uses of GIs, it stops short of offering absolute protection – leaving the burden of proof on the GI holder to demonstrate consumer confusion or reputational harm. By contrast, Article 23, which provides enhanced protection, does so only for wines and spirits – creating a discriminatory hierarchy that continues to marginalise handicrafts and traditional artisanal goods predominantly originating from developing countries like India. The absence of parity undermines the very spirit of the TRIPS Agreement and reflects a colonial residue embedded in the structure of global IP norms.

Further complicating the landscape is the lack of harmonisation across international treaties. The Paris Convention (1883) and the Lisbon Agreement (1958, revised in 2015) provide additional forums for GI protection, but enforcement is far from uniform, and membership in these instruments is uneven. For instance, while the European Union enforces a robust sui generis GI system with ex officio powers to act against infringements, India’s GI rights evaporate at its borders unless separately registered abroad. There is no automatic multilateral recognition, nor any binding enforcement mechanism under TRIPS to compel foreign jurisdictions to protect Indian GIs like Kolhapuri chappals.

Consequently, any legal challenge against Prada would have to be pursued under national laws in Italy or the EU, likely invoking doctrines of unfair competition or passing off. This is not only legally complex but financially prohibitive for grassroots artisans or even State-appointed GI holders. Thus, while TRIPS purports to be a framework of equitable international protection, in practice, it functions as a patchwork of asymmetries and deferrals, offering little comfort to those whose cultural identity and economic survival depend on the sanctity of their origin-linked goods.

The European Counterpart: Where India Lags Behind

The European Union’s GI protection regime offers automatic protection within all member states upon registration and enforces GI misuse even by unrelated third parties. The French Appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) system is another example of rigorous enforcement, where even the shape and labeling of packaging can trigger infringement. For instance, “Champagne” cannot be used outside the Champagne region even if the producer clarifies the geographic difference.

Contrast this with India’s GI law: while Section 66 allows civil remedies including injunctions and damages, the law lacks teeth abroad. India also lacks a mechanism to monitor global GI violations or maintain a digital watch-list accessible to foreign companies for due diligence. Prada’s claim that it may not commercialise the design and is willing to initiate “dialogue” with artisans, though welcome, remains non-committal and voluntary—a reminder of the weakness of moral suasion without legal compulsion.

Doctrine of Dormant Protections

Despite the rise in geopolitical relevance and economic importance of Geographical Indications (GIs), Indian jurisprudence in this domain has remained curiously anaemic — neither muscular in enforcement nor visionary in interpretation. Indian courts have seldom ventured into international GI enforcement. A telling example of this judicial hesitancy is the decision in Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd., 2011 (Calcutta High Court), which cast a long and rather unflattering shadow on the protective potential of GIs in India.

In that case, the Tea Board sought to restrain the ITC Group from naming one of its luxury hotels as “Darjeeling Lounge,” invoking its rights over the ‘Darjeeling’ GI. The Calcutta High Court declined relief, reasoning that the use of the name in a hospitality context — unconnected with tea as a good — did not constitute infringement under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The Court leaned on a narrow construction of use “in relation to goods”, thereby excluding services from the ambit of GI protection. This literalist interpretation effectively disarmed the GI-holder from asserting its exclusive reputation — a reputation which the law ostensibly exists to protect — beyond the rigid walls of product categorisation.

What this precedent reveals is not merely a gap in legal reasoning, but a symptomatic judicial inertia — a reluctance to evolve the jurisprudence in pace with the ever-globalising exploitation of traditional knowledge and identity-linked products. The judgment failed to appreciate the semantic spill-over effect, where the use of a GI outside its strict product category may still ride upon, or dilute, the goodwill associated with it. This has echoes of trademark dilution jurisprudence, notably recognised in jurisdictions such as the United States under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, where blurring and tarnishment are actionable even absent consumer confusion.

Further, Indian courts have displayed a conspicuous absence of engagement with international legal tools available under TRIPS. Article 22(2) of the TRIPS Agreement obliges Members to provide legal means to prevent the use of GIs “in a manner which constitutes an act of unfair competition” within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris Convention — including practices that mislead the public or discredit the GI’s reputation.
Yet Indian courts have seldom interpreted the 1999 Act in light of these layered obligations, nor have they made jurisprudential strides to harmonise Indian law with the doctrine of extended protection under Article 23 of TRIPS, which mandates additional safeguards for wines and spirits — a category often cited as a model for expanding protection to other high-value GIs.

The absence of Indian precedents enforcing cross-border GI claims or even referencing reciprocal enforcement mechanisms under Section 84 and 85 of the 1999 Act — provisions that empower India to extend protection to GIs of foreign countries and expect the same treatment in return — shows an alarming dormancy in the judicial imagination. Unlike in the European Union, where GIs such as Champagne, Parma Ham, and Roquefort have enjoyed vigorous judicial and administrative protection (including through the European Court of Justice’s expansive rulings), Indian courts have refrained from asserting extraterritorial claims, even in diplomatic or WTO fora.

In short, Indian GI jurisprudence suffers from narrow interpretation, institutional inertia, and a strategic reluctance to assert rights through proactive litigation and international engagement. In result, GI holders — whether custodians of Darjeeling Tea or artisans of Kolhapuri chappals — often find themselves with rights in theory but remedies in limbo. Their condition resembles not so much David against Goliath, but a David without a sling, standing before an unshaken Goliath amidst an indifferent judiciary.

For India’s GI regime to realise its full potential, courts may shed this passive posture. Judicial activism — calibrated but courageous — is not only desirable but imperative, if traditional knowledge is to be shielded from global commodification and cultural erasure.

From Parchment to Power

The Prada-Kolhapuri chappal episode has not merely exposed a cultural faultline between homage and appropriation – it has laid bare the systemic inadequacies of India’s current legal and institutional architecture governing Geographical Indications (GIs). For a country that boasts the world’s richest mosaic of traditional knowledge and artisanal heritage, India’s GI regime remains disconcertingly insular and reactive. To move from rhetorical indignation to strategic assertion, it is imperative that the Indian Government deploy a dual-pronged approach – assertive on the international stage and institutionally robust at home.

I. International Strategy: Legal Diplomacy and Treaty Architecture

At the international level, the Government must engage in legal diplomacy, led by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry in active coordination with the Ministry of External Affairs. The primary task is to negotiate and conclude reciprocal GI protection treaties, inspired by the European Union’s Protected Geographical Indications (PGI) framework. Such agreements must ensure that Indian GIs, once registered, enjoy automatic recognition and enforceability in foreign jurisdictions, particularly those with active luxury, fashion, and design markets.

In parallel, India may adopt a bolder stance at the World Trade Organization (WTO), advocating for a TRIPS-plus regime. The current limitation of Article 23 protections to wines and spirits is not only arbitrary but colonial in its bias – it continues to exclude the cultural expressions of the Global South from higher legal safeguards. India, backed by similarly placed countries, must demand the horizontal extension of Article 23 protections to handicrafts and traditional manufactured goods such as Banarasi Silk, Sohrai-Khovar Painting and Kolhapuri Chappals.

II. National Architecture: Institutions with Teeth

Domestically, symbolic registration and rhetorical outrage may be replaced by institutions with operational teeth. At the heart of this transformation should be the establishment of a Dedicated International GI Enforcement Cell within the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). This body must possess legal, commercial, and diplomatic capabilities to detect misuse, initiate foreign legal proceedings, and represent registered Indian GIs in international forums. It should be backed by a corpus fund for financing transnational litigation and enforcement efforts, particularly in high-cost jurisdictions like the European Union and the United States.

Complementing this, a National GI Enforcement Authority must be instituted through statutory amendment. This body should function not only as a litigation support mechanism but also as a facilitator of international trademark and design registration for authorised users and artisan collectives. It must coordinate with Indian embassies, consulates, and trade missions abroad to monitor violations and negotiate remedies directly with offending corporations.

III. What May Be Done Next?

To render India’s Geographical Indications regime truly future-ready, what is required is not incrementalism but a judicious blend of legislative innovation and policy audacity. Foremost, India may accord strategic priority to the international registration of its culturally significant GIs with key intellectual property regimes such as the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and the WIPO-administered Lisbon Registry – without which legal enforceability abroad remains speculative and reactive.

Concurrently, the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, may be amended to provide for the constitution of a statutorily empowered Global GI Enforcement Cell, vested with authority to coordinate, represent, and litigate on behalf of Indian GI stakeholders across jurisdictions. In parallel, India should pursue the negotiation of reciprocal GI recognition agreements, particularly with jurisdictions of high commercial sensitivity in fashion and design, following the example of Switzerland and Japan.

Finally, India ought to champion the creation of an International Digital Archive of Traditional Designs under the aegis of WIPO – modelled on the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) – to institutionalise a global due diligence mechanism for the fashion and luxury industries, thereby disarming misappropriation through preemptive transparency.

India can no longer afford to treat GIs as mere heritage tokens to be displayed in glossy reports. They are economic assets, cultural signatures, and instruments of soft power. The infringement by Prada is not an isolated act—it is symptomatic of a global appetite for commodifying culture without consent. Unless the Indian State transforms its GI regime from a parchment promise into a sovereignty-driven enforcement machinery, artisans will continue to be erased from their own creations. This is not merely about leather and sandals; it is about law, identity, and justice in the global marketplace.

The Kolhapuri chappal is not just footwear – it is history worn on the heel, stitched with caste memories, artisanal pride, and leather-tough resilience. Its silent walk across a Milanese runway, stripped of context and credit, is not a triumph but a theft dressed as tribute. India’s GI law, while visionary, lacks the claws to defend tradition from global commodification. To preserve its intangible heritage in an age of cultural capitalism, India must act – legally, diplomatically, and digitally.

For now, Prada walks free. But tradition must not tread barefoot in the courts of the world.

The writer, a Ph.D., LL.M. from the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru, is an Advocate and Visiting faculty, National University of Study and Research in Law (NUSRL), Ranchi.