Intellectual Property Newsletter – GI from Milan to Maharashtra: How Prada’s Sandal Scandal Exposed the Cultural Appropriation Crisis in Global Fashion : July 2025
Understanding Geographical Indications: The Foundation of Cultural Protection:
A Geographical Indication (GI) is a vital form of intellectual property that identifies products originating from specific regions where their unique qualities, reputation and characteristics are rooted in local tradition and environment. Under India’s GI Act, 1999, these tags protect authenticity, uphold quality standards, and safeguard cultural heritage by preventing unauthorized use.
India’s GI framework post 2003 covers over 600 products as of 2024. This affirms India’s commitment to preserving its rich and diverse heritage. Darjeeling Tea was the first to receive GI protection in year 2004–2005 which set a precedent for other regional products.
GI protection brings important economic benefits. GI-tagged products often attract higher prices, improve artisan livelihoods, and create new opportunities. Global consumers now value authenticity more. This protection legally defends traditional knowledge and craftsmanship. It also ensures that communities gain substantial advantages from their cultural heritage while stopping external commercial exploitation.
The Prada Controversy: When Heritage Meets High Fashion
The controversy erupted on June 23, 2025, when Prada unveiled its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection at Milan Fashion Week, featuring sandals that bore a striking resemblance to traditional Kolhapuri chappals. However, Prada labelled them simply as “leather flat sandals” with no reference to their Indian connection. With these sandals priced at over ₹1 lakh they sparked immediate outrage for cultural appropriation and economic exploitation as Indian artisans typically sell authentic Kolhapuri chappal pricing as low as ₹400 to the expensive ones ranging ₹4,000.
Kolhapuri chappals however are more than just footwear, they are centuries old symbols of regional heritage and artisanal skill. Handcrafted with vegetable tanned leather using traditional techniques, their distinctive braided straps and cutwork mark generations of craftsmanship. Rooted in the 12th century, their history is tied to efforts for social inclusion and the removal of stigma from the cobbler community. The “Kolhapuri” brand was formalized in the early 20th century in Kolhapur, Maharashtra with local rulers supporting production and tanning centers.
In 2019, Kolhapuri chappals received GI tag protection for eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka, recognizing their cultural and artisanal value and safeguarding them for future generations.
Criticism and Community Response
Political leaders also responded. BJP Rajya Sabha MP Dhananjay Mahadik wrote to Maharashtra’s Chief Minister, urging protection of the GI tag and calling Prada’s action a violation of India’s GI Act and Artisan Act. Mahadik emphasized, “The sandals displayed by Prada are unmistakably Kolhapuri in their design. If Prada collaborates with our artisans, we can supply them with authentic products and take the Kolhapuri name global.” Lalit Gandhi, president of the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) formally challenged Prada stating, “Kolhapuri chappals are not only a cultural emblem of Maharashtra but also sustain the livelihoods of thousands of artisans. Labelling them simply as ‘leather sandals’ without acknowledging their origin undermines this heritage”.
Prada’s Response and Acknowledgment
The response to Prada’s collection was swift and multifaceted. Billionaire After intense backlash Lorenzo Bertelli, the head of Corporate Social Responsibility at Prada Group, sent a formal letter to Lalit Gandhi acknowledging the sandals’ Indian heritage:
“We acknowledge that the sandals featured in the recent Prada Men’s 2026 Fashion Show are inspired by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, with a centuries old heritage. We deeply recognize the cultural significance of such Indian craftsmanship.”
Bertelli clarified that the collection was at an early stage and not yet confirmed for production or commercialization. Importantly, Prada expressed openness to “meaningful exchange with local Indian artisan communities” and a commitment to “responsible design practices, fostering cultural engagement” to ensure rightful recognition of traditional craft.
Prada indicated its willingness to discuss revenue sharing with Kolhapuri artisans. With potential talks about Prada team soon visiting India for discussions, highlighting the potential for collaborative partnerships that could benefit traditional communities.
The Broader Crisis of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion
The Prada Kolhapuri controversy highlights a wider crisis of cultural appropriation in fashion. Cultural appropriation happens when dominant groups adopt elements from oppressed or colonized societies without consent, attribution, or compensation by repeating colonial patterns where the Global South’s culture is exploited for profit by the Global North, stripping it of meaning.
Artisan communities suffer economically as global brands mass-produce similar designs, undercutting traditional producers and leaving them invisible and underpaid. There are now only 15,000–20,000 Kolhapuri artisans which is a steep drop from before, while luxury brands profit from their craft’s cachet.
Enforcement is tough for traditional communities, who lack resources and legal know-how to pursue legal action internationally. With just 95 artisans registered as authorized GI users, there’s a clear gap in awareness and support for protecting their heritage.
Legal Framework and the Challenge of International Protection
India’s GI Act provides a well-structured framework for enforcing collective rights by recognising GIs as a form of community based intellectual property. Registered proprietors as well as authorised users have the right to seek relief in cases of infringement.
However, GI marks currently do not have any automatic international legal protection which is why it limits their enforceability to just India. As a result, many multinational brands can freely use and replicate traditional Indian designs abroad without facing any major legal consequences, unless such rights are recognised and enforced through international instruments or bilateral arrangements.
The Broader Crisis of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion
India is a signatory to several global agreement which provide limited mechanisms for global GI protection. Under the TRIPS Agreement (1995) particularly Article 22, members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) are obliged to prevent the misuse of GIs that mislead consumers or amount to unfair competition. Article 23 of TRIPS provides a heightened standard of protection for wines and spirits, preventing the use of such GIs even where there is no likelihood of deception. However, many developing countries including India argue for extending this higher level of protection to all products, particularly handicrafts and traditional knowledge.
In addition to this, the Paris Convention (1883) under Article 10bis, obliges countries to provide effective safeguards against unfair competition, including false or misleading geographical designations. The Madrid Agreement (1891), a special treaty under the Paris Convention, also prohibits the use of false indications of source and permits seizure of such goods upon importation.
However, these international treaties do not automatically grant rights unless supported by national law or mutual recognition. The European Union’s registration of Basmati rice as a GI product is a prime example of how bilateral cooperation can yield protection under foreign jurisdictions.
Similarly, India must consider pursuing GI registration for Kolhapuri chappals in markets like the EU to prevent cultural and commercial misuse
The registration process itself demands community participation. Associations of persons, producers, or organisations that represent the interests of the producers are eligible to apply for GI protection. This collective method acknowledges that traditional knowledge and production practices are usually preserved by communities, not individuals, and therefore require a different approach compared to conventional intellectual property rights.
In an effort to address these concerns, MP Mahadik announced plans to file a public interest litigation (PIL) and hold discussions with the Union Minister of Commerce and Industry to push for action at the national level. The delegation also demanded the creation of a stronger legal framework to prevent unauthorised use of GI tagged products by multinational corporations. In addition, they called for financial and legal assistance for artisans who wish to challenge such misuse in international courts.
Remedies and Challenges for GI holders of Kolhapuri Chappals
Kolhapuri chappal artisans who hold the GI can initiate legal proceedings under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. The Act provides for both civil and criminal remedies. Under Section 22, they may file a civil suit seeking an injunction, damages, or accounts of profits. Criminal provisions under Sections 39 and 40 penalise false application and falsification of GIs with imprisonment up to three years and fines extending to ₹2 lakh.
International enforcement is a larger hurdle. While India can raise disputes at the WTO under TRIPS or use Article ’10bis’ of the Paris Convention to argue unfair competition, such processes are slow, diplomatic, and resource intensive. The Madrid System may allow procedural opposition to trademark-like infringements, but it lacks GI specific enforcement strength.
This calls for a multi-faceted response. Legal aid should be extended to registered GI holders to pursue international remedies. More importantly, India must proactively negotiate for mutual recognition of GIs in trade deals. As demonstrated in the EU’s recognition of Basmati rice, bilateral or regional registration can provide effective protection against misappropriation. Overall, while the Prada-Kolhapuri incident triggered widespread criticism it also reveals an opportunity to reinforce GI enforcement mechanisms.
The Basmati Rice Case
India and Pakistan have been growing Basmati rice in particular areas of the Indian states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh, as well as in Pakistan’s Punjab province. However, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted a patent to RiceTec in 2001 for specific hybrid varieties of rice under the name “Basmati”.
This received backlash from India and Pakistan and the case gained international attention. Thus, in 2016 the EU granted GI status to Basmati rice owing to protection of India and Pakistan’s traditional farming against exploitation. This was also followed by the EU ruling that only rice from Indian subcontinent, specifically India and Pakistan could be marketed as Basmati. This ensured protection of the term’s cultural significance to the Indian subcontinent.
The Sanganeri GI Dispute
The famed Indian designer, Sabyasachi in collaboration with the Swedish brand H&M launched his collection named Wanderlust featuring bohemian kaftans, t-shirts, trousers, dresses, and a sari. The collection was found to be inspired from famous Indian crafts and artisanal designs, including Rajasthan’s Sanganeri prints.
Sanganeri is an ancient practice of block-printing originating centuries ago from Sanganer, Rajasthan. ‘Sanganeri Hand Block Printing’ is registered as a Geographical Indication as per Section 2(f) of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act. 1999.
Subsequently Sabyasachi was addressed in an open letter signed by 15 Indian crafts associations and collectives, including Crafts Council of India, Crafts Council of Karnataka, and the All India Artisans & Craftworkers Welfare Association questioning the credit or compensation due for the artisans. Sabyasachi in response stated that the collaboration was a part of putting Indian Design on the international map and artisans are compensated through the exposure which would lead to raising price points for their artisanal work.
Conclusion
The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy has unexpectedly opened doors for real collaboration. As Lalit Gandhi noted, this global spotlight could benefit local artisans, with Kolhapuri chappals priced between ₹400–₹4,000 and Prada’s similar footwear selling for over ₹1 lakh, showing vast market potential.
This case highlights both challenges and opportunities in protecting traditional knowledge. While luxury brands often appropriate without attribution, Prada’s willingness to engage offers a chance to set a new standard for ethical cultural exchange.
Industry experts see this as a turning point. Lloyd Mathias points out that global brands can elevate local traditions but only with proper attribution, community involvement, and fair benefit-sharing. The resolution may set precedents for communities to assert their rights and gain recognition and economic rewards.
About Us:
LegaLogic (www.legalogic.com) is a full-service law firm with more than 100 people team. Founded in 2013, LegaLogic has been advising across industry segments. It is a go-to firm for the Corporate Commercial Matters, M&A, Intellectual Property, Employment Law, Real Estate. Dispute Resolution, Litigation, India Entry Strategy and Private Client Practice. To know more about Intellectual Property Law practices, please write to us at ipr@legalogic.com.
Disclaimer:
This newsletter is for informational purpose only and should not be treated as legal advice or opinion. No part of this newsletter should be considered an advertisement or solicitation of professional services of LegaLogic.
