{"id":3971,"date":"2025-08-05T17:48:58","date_gmt":"2025-08-05T12:18:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/?p=3971"},"modified":"2025-08-05T17:49:05","modified_gmt":"2025-08-05T12:19:05","slug":"can-a-gi-tag-stop-a-billion-dollar-brand-kolhapuris-vs-prada","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.centurylawfirm.in\/blog\/can-a-gi-tag-stop-a-billion-dollar-brand-kolhapuris-vs-prada\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a GI Tag Stop a Billion-Dollar Brand? Kolhapuris vs. Prada"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
By: Abhishek Singh<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Introduction: When Tradition Meets the Global Runway<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In late 2024, an unexpected storm brewed\u2014not in Parliament or the courtroom\u2014but across social media timelines. Fashion enthusiasts in India were quick to point out that an opulent sandal from the Italian luxury house Prada looked strikingly familiar. With minimalist stitching, a single-piece sole, and the signature toe loop, it bore a strong resemblance to the Kolhapuri chappal\u2014the iconic handcrafted footwear deeply rooted in the cultural fabric of Maharashtra and Karnataka.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only glaring difference? The price tag. While a pair of authentic Kolhapuris may cost a few hundred rupees in India, Prada’s version was being retailed for over \u20b980,000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the meme-worthy contrast lay a serious question that India’s artisans and policymakers must now confront: Can our Geographical Indication (GI) system genuinely protect traditional designs from being diluted\u2014or worse, exploited\u2014by global corporations?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kolhapuri Chappals: A Heritage Etched in Leather<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Kolhapuri chappal is no ordinary sandal. With intricate braiding, meticulous stitching, and leather processing techniques passed down through generations, this footwear represents more than mere craftsmanship\u2014it is a living tradition. Artisans in Kolhapur, Athani, and nearby regions often learn this trade within families, beginning as early as adolescence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In 2019, these chappals were granted GI status under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, jointly by Maharashtra and Karnataka. The tag acknowledged:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. The geographical uniqueness of the product<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The traditional craftsmanship involved<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. The need to protect artisans’ rights in a globalizing market<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Yet, as the Prada case shows, recognition without enforcement is like a chappal without a sole\u2014symbolic but not functional.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Prada Sandal Controversy: Inspiration or Appropriation?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    In the world of luxury fashion, drawing from cultural motifs is nothing new. From Japanese kimonos on French runways to African tribal prints in Western boutiques, inspiration flows freely. However, when this inspiration turns into imitation\u2014without acknowledgment, collaboration, or compensation\u2014it raises the specter of cultural appropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Prada’s design, though not named “Kolhapuri,” carried unmistakable visual markers. Yet nowhere in its product description did it mention India, Kolhapur, or traditional leather artisans. There was no effort to collaborate with Indian communities, nor was there any channel to share profits with the originators of the design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This wasn’t just an artistic oversight\u2014it was a missed ethical obligation, further highlighted when Kolhapuri artisans publicly demanded recognition and governmental intervention after Milan Fashion Week, emphasizing their GI-protected craft had been showcased without a mention of its origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Legal Framework: What a GI Tag Can and Cannot Do<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

    Understanding Geographical Indications<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

    The GI Act, 1999, defines a geographical indication as a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or reputation due to that origin. While the name “Kolhapuri” is protected, the design features of the sandal are not.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Key Limitations of the Current GI Regime<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. No protection of appearance or aesthetic design<\/strong> unless separately registered under the Designs Act, 2000<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. No extraterritorial application<\/strong>\u2014meaning, the law doesn’t apply outside India unless mirrored in a bilateral treaty or foreign court<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Enforcement must be initiated by registered proprietors or authorized users<\/strong>, often small cooperatives with limited legal budgets<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      This gap makes it exceedingly difficult to prevent multinational corporations from replicating Indian designs\u2014so long as they don’t use the protected name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Case Laws and Legal Precedents<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd (2011)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      One major case often cited in GI-related matters is Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd (2011)<\/strong>. Here, the use of the name “Darjeeling Lounge” for a hotel bar was challenged by the Tea Board, which owns the GI for “Darjeeling Tea.” The Calcutta High Court ruled that there was no infringement because the term was not used for tea or related products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      This case highlights how GI laws focus heavily on product-name association. Just copying the style or essence of a GI-protected item is usually not enough to constitute legal violation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Another important precedent is the Amar Nath Sehgal v. Union of India<\/strong> case, where the Delhi High Court ruled on the misuse of cultural expressions in public spaces. Although not directly about GI, the judgment reinforced the need to respect the origins and rights associated with cultural creations, recognizing moral rights of artists and communities. This case has been influential in discussions about cultural appropriation and respect for heritage in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      International Precedent: Basmati Rice GI Dispute<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Internationally, the Basmati Rice GI dispute<\/strong> between India and Pakistan offers insight into cross-border GI enforcement challenges. The Intellectual Property<\/a> Appellate Board (IPAB) in India upheld India’s exclusive right over “Basmati” as a GI, reinforcing the principle that a geographical indication must be strictly linked to origin and production methods. This case underscores how nations struggle to protect traditional products in global markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      These precedents underscore a crucial point: misuse of design alone\u2014without name or origin reference\u2014is rarely sufficient under GI law. The financial and legal asymmetry between rural artisan cooperatives and global fashion houses is therefore stark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Cultural Appropriation: A Legal Blind Spot<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The Challenge of Traditional Cultural Expressions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      The Prada incident highlights a deeper, systemic issue: existing IP laws are ill-equipped to handle cultural appropriation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs)\u2014like folk songs, motifs, designs, and rituals\u2014are often community-owned and collectively evolved. Yet current IP laws, rooted in Euro-American individualist frameworks, do not recognize this communal authorship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      The GRATK Treaty: A New Hope<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      Efforts by WIPO to draft a treaty on the protection of TCEs culminated in the GRATK Treaty<\/strong>, adopted in May 2024, which for the first time addresses traditional knowledge and expressions in a formal international IP instrument.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      International Gaps and Asymmetries<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      The Disparity in Protection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      In contrast, France’s Champagne, Italy’s Parma ham, and Scotland’s whisky enjoy strong international safeguards\u2014often backed by trade diplomacy. Their producers have the institutional and legal capacity to fight counterfeits worldwide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      But can Kolhapuri artisan cooperatives, often operating at the brink of subsistence, hire international IP attorneys to take on Prada in Italy? The answer is obvious\u2014and disheartening.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Future Trade Agreements<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

      India’s recent India-EU Free Trade Agreement negotiations have seen GI protection tabled as a key issue. If successful, such treaties could allow Kolhapuri artisans to enjoy reciprocal protection in European markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      What Needs to Change: Legal and Ethical Pathways Forward<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      Legal Solutions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Design GI Integration<\/strong>: India could amend its GI law to enable automatic design protection for GI-certified goods, especially when visual aesthetics are integral<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. Mandatory GI registration in key markets<\/strong>: Particularly the EU and US, where luxury knock-offs likely surface<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. Community IP frameworks<\/strong>: Adapt laws to allow for collective ownership and representation, especially for artisan clusters<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Ethical Responsibilities for Brands<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

        Brands like Prada must lead with conscience, not just commerce:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Collaborate with artisan cooperatives<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Adopt fair trade certifications<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Share credit and profits when designs borrow from Indigenous traditions<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          We’ve seen hopeful models: Dior’s collaboration with Indian weavers, Herm\u00e8s’ partnerships with Ghanaian leatherworkers, and UNESCO-backed artisan co-branding in Peru. These examples show ethical fashion can be both profitable and culturally respectful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          IPR and GI: Are Traditional Crafts Truly Protected?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

          The Broader IPR Ecosystem<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          Geographical Indications (GIs) form one component of the broader Intellectual Property Rights<\/a> (IPR<\/a>) ecosystem. Unlike trademarks or patents, which are typically owned by individuals or corporations, GIs represent collective ownership by a community. However, this distinction creates challenges when traditional designs or crafts are replicated outside their place of origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          Gaps in Current Protection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

          While GI protection in India is governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, it is product-specific\u2014meaning it safeguards the name (“Kolhapuri”), the origin (Kolhapur, Maharashtra and parts of Karnataka), and the method of production. But it does not offer broader protection under other branches of IPR<\/a>, such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          1. Design Law<\/strong>: Unless artisans also register the visual design under the Designs Act, 2000, others may legally mimic it abroad<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          2. Copyright Law<\/strong>: Protects original artistic works, but most traditional designs do not qualify as they are not by a single “author”<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          3. Trademark Law<\/strong>: Cannot prevent appropriation unless the community has registered a specific logo or mark<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

            The Need for Sui Generis Protection<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

            In essence, while GIs are recognized under IPR, they function in isolation, leaving traditional artisans vulnerable when:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              \n
            1. Designs are copied but names are altered (as in the Prada sandal)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            2. Communities lack the legal capacity or knowledge to register under multiple regimes<\/li>\n\n\n\n
            3. Global IP systems favor individual innovation over collective heritage<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

              Legal scholars such as Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan have repeatedly called for a sui generis regime<\/strong>\u2014a unique law that goes beyond current IPR categories and recognizes cultural and design expressions as protected community rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

              International Models for Inspiration<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

              India can also draw inspiration from models like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n