- within Consumer Protection, Real Estate and Construction and International Law topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
Introduction: The Tug-Of-War Over Gi Rights
Recently, "Prada" an Italian luxury brand introduced its Summer 2026 Menswear collection at Milan Fashion week, which introduced, among many designs, a similar looking toe-ring footwear collection resembling the famously recognized and registered Geographical Indication (GI) of Kolhapuri Chappal.1 The footwear collection in question sparked controversy and accusations of cultural appropriation and its failure to properly address and give due credit to its Indian artisans. This controversy was quickly addressed by Prada's Spoke-person Lorenzo Bertelli after immense backlash from netizens, who acknowledged that their footwear introduced in its summer collection was "inspired by traditional Indian handcraft footwear" and was open to meaningful dialogue with the local artisans.2 However, this controversy is not limited to simply cultural appropriation or not giving due credit, but reveals pertinent gaps regarding the "protection and preservation of traditional knowledge", heritage and cultural belongings of the people in the Indian statutory framework pertaining to GIs.
While the recently recorded surge of 44% in IPR registration across India between 2021-2025, with Geographical Indications alone witnessing an average growth of 380%, followed by Designs, Patents and Copyrights, saw a growth of 266%, 180% and 83% respectively.3 This clearly shows that the IP Landscape in India is experiencing a drastic shift with the total number of registrations increasing from 4.8 Lakh (Approx.) registrations in 2021 to 6.9 Lakh in the fiscal year of 2025.4 Thus, without adequate protection in place, it leads to two major issues, firstly, at the grassroot level, it enables international powerhouses to sidestep liability, infringe upon registered GIs, misuse the exception provided under the Act and deprives genuine creators of recognition and benefit, and secondly, it leads to dilution of cultural identity, export market erosion as well as loss of brand value.
The present blog endeavours to dissect and analyse India's cultural nuances and statutory framework with reference to the "Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999 (GI Act)" and "Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Rules, 2002 (GI Rules)". Furthermore, it identifies existing gaps in the act in context of the Prada-Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy and propose actionable and practical legal solutions to them. Additionally, It comparatively analyzes the GI Act with major international jurisdictions such as E.U, Latin America, and China to achieve optimal solutions for such loopholes identified. Lastly, it suggests an actionable vision for Artisans driven compensation which prioritize protection, preservation and participation of the people.
Beyond Law And Labels: Analysing The Indian Framework and Its Strength and Limits
With more than 600 registered GIs in India, spanning across textiles, crafts, Agricultural produce, etc, India is home to a vibrant archive of traditional wisdom and craftsmanship. Each GI signals a unique community, lineage, and tribe and with each GI acknowledgment, it grants a legal validation to that cultural identity in the IP realm.5 Thus, by formalizing GI rights in India under the GI Act, 1999 it protects and preserves more than 400 distinct cultures which projects India's commitment to intangible heritage as a pillar of economic and cultural sovereignty.6 The present GI Act was enacted to fulfil India's obligation under the "TRIPS agreement", which was part of the "Uruguay rounds of GATT discussions", and was specifically inspired from Articles 22 to 24 of the agreement which defined and protected GIs.7 The Act was designed keeping in mind such cultural and traditional diversity, as aforementioned, and its aim was to protect the interest of diverse group of producers and association of people associated with that particular good.
Moreover, with recent reforms introduced by the Ministry of Commerce and Industries as per Draft Amendment Rules, 2023 as well as in a press release by the Government, such as – (a) transparent, secure, and compact application process with the help of digitization of records, (b) providing AI-powered IP tools and dashboard to reduce backlog and improve transparency, and (c) e-governance platform for registration of GI, which were previously notorious for paperwork, with real-time tracking and e-certificates. These reforms aim to restructure the India's GI ecosystem by reducing fees by making it affordable for grassroot communities to directly register GIs, reduce dependencies on large institutional intermediaries, and making producers of such goods for global competitiveness by providing fee concessions, simplified process and economical additional protection fillings.
Now addressing the controversy behind Prada and makers of Kolhapuri Chappal, petitioners argued that the PRADA introduced 'toe ring sandals' that had a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal. Further, that each pair of sandals required specialised human skills and time intensive process that could have only been developed after centuries of practice and passed down generation. If brands like PRADA are permitted to copy such kolhapuri Chappal for its own products without any due recognition and compensation to original makers it would open floodgates of infringement and cultural appropriation in the near future.8 Thus, using such deceptive practices with ulterior objectives of earning through unauthorized use of GIs of registered users violates "Section 22 of the GI Act".9 However, the Court, after careful analysis of facts and relevant law, dismissed the petition because as per "Section 11 of the GI Act", which states that 'an application can be only made by persons or producers or any organizations or authority, which represents the interests of producers of concerned good. Similarly, Court emphasized that its registered proprietors such as LIDCOM and LIDKAR are well equipped to protect their rights of registered GI, if they believed so.10
Addressing The Gap Between Paper And Practice In India's Gi Regime
Even though the petition was dismissed on aforementioned grounds, the petitioners identified a pertinent gap pertaining to 'no explicit scope for licensing and collaboration' when GI products are used by international brands and other entities. This gap can be identified under Section 24 of the Act, which explicitly prohibits assignment, transmission, or licensing or GI rights to other entities. While such section offer protection and prevents private actors purchasing a cultural asset and stops treating GI like a tradable asset to prevent exploitation to maintain long-term collective control. It also produces a blanket ban on market scaling accessibility to the producers and without the ability to enter into contractual partnerships, many communities are stuck at low-value market chains and may not be able to meet international standards of production and quality. Thus, a balanced approach should be adopted to preserve Section 24's public interest protection as well as allow conditional partnerships and collaborations. The purpose of such conditional collaboration would not be giving GI rights away but allow benefit-sharing collaboration where the community leads and others provide specialised support. Similar revenue-sharing models are adopted in EU, as per "EU producer Group Governance Model", wherein under Article 55 of such framework grants exclusive rights to represent all producers, while Article 58(1)(j) requires "fair distribution of value added amongst actors in supply chain", and under Article 58(2) maintains transparency by mandating public reporting of economic benefits to producers.11 Thus, inserting new Section 21A, about mandating direct benefit-sharing agreements as one of the conditions for GI registration will fill this lacunae.
It is recommended that an amendment be made to Section 24, which allow a limited licensing exception with strict conditions such as – (a) written consent of the majority of registered producers, (b) mandatory benefit-sharing in form of guaranteed payment or percentage of net sales, (c) quality control measures and compliance with registered product, (d) revocability for breach and prohibition for sub licensing. This would allow financing options and loans over contractual receivables rather than GI itself, which protects the core of inalienability core of Section 24 while unlocking financial benefits for producers.
Similarly, the act does not guarantee any effective enforcement outside India, which refers to Territorial limitation of protection and there is no explicit protection against misuse by international brands unless reciprocal recognition exists within the states. While developed countries such as China and European union have relied on its China-EU Recognition Model, 202112, which facilitates and mutually recognizes more than 300 GIs by the end of 2025. This can be recognized as per Article 4 of the Model, stating "each Party shall protect the geographical indications listed in Annex II to this Agreement in its territory".13 This arrangement allows EU countries to receive cross-border protection for GIs recognized in China and vica-versa. A similar model can be implemented by India by negotiating GI recognition protocols with blocks such as ASEAN, BRICS partners and Gulf states and maintain an interoperable GI notification and registry mechanism for countries. This can be implemented by either amending the Annexes of GIs to be mutually protection, which may include high value products like Kolhapuri Chappal, Darjeeling Tea, Basmati, Pashmina, etc, and include a mechanism afterward to add without administrative notice and re-negotiations. Additionally, a GI meta data exchange can take place with participating countries to maintain a public dashboard and a shared "GI Watch" for stakeholders and these GIs could be further tracked by creating a unique "GI identifiers".
Another way to approach this gap, is to use the existing bilateral FTAs as vehicles of change and implementing standalone IP/sectoral chapters in them, specifically mentioning such GIs to be protected and make provision for inclusion of other GIs. This will allow countries in bilateral or multilateral FTAs to give preferential inclusion in market promotional programs and exclusion from higher tariffs, if intended. This will ultimately result in overall higher trade between the partner nations as each product will create its own niche market in partner countries which will lead to creation of GI-centric Marketplaces.
Lastly, addressing the issue of protection against cultural appropriation, which directly relates to the case of PRADA-Kolhapuri Chappal, wherein the respondent as well as the spokesperson argued that its product were merely inspired by the traditional footwear and that the brand never labelled them as "Kolhapuri Chappals". This defence exposed a persistent gap in Indian GI law which allowed the international powerhouse to sidestep liability as Indian law does not expressly prohibit "inspired by" or "style" descriptions while exploiting the reputation of traditional crafts. The existing provisions such as Section 914 targets mislabelling but does not provide for indirect references or visual evocations that create associative confusion, and Section 2215 requires "unauthorized use of a registered GI in a manner that misleads the public" about its origin or constitute unfair competition. In such matters, courts often relies on consumer confusion or direct mislabelling and even though Central Government has the option to extend stronger protection as under "TRIPS agreement Article 23", the use of such is limited and discretionary in nature.16
This issue can be resolved by relying on the EU's "Evocation Doctrine" jurisprudence which covers a situation like the PRADA-Kolhapuri Chappal controversy, wherein if a product evokes a protected GI in the mind of the average consumer even if the literal GI name is not used then the product could be said to have infringed upon the GI. This test was devised in the case of "Scotch Whisky Association v Klotz"17, wherein the Court confirmed that a GI may be infringed by evocation and evocation does not require to be identical. The court relied on consumer perception and the overall presentation against "inspired by" or culturally appropriative marketing. Furthermore, the Courts asked (a) whether the challenged use creates a "sufficiently clear and direct link" with the protected GI and (b) whether average consumers are likely to be misled. Thus, under the "evocation test" PRADA's use would be actionable because it creates a clear and direct association with the protection GI in the mind of the consumer, irrespective of any "style" or "inspiration" qualifier. To plug this loophole, we may insert Section 22A which purposefully closes the inspiration/style loophole and make evocation actionable even when literal GI name is not used, similar to the case of the Scotch Whisky Association.
Conclusion: Protecting Heritage In A Globalised World
The controversy between the Italian luxury brand PRADA and producers of Kolhapuri Chappals may have started off as a GI infringement and cultural appropriation suit, but has the potential to set an example for India's GI future by addressing the concerns highlighted in this blog. With the recent surge in IP registrations, as aforementioned, marks the dawn of a new era in India's creative and artisanal economy similar to that before the British era, but these potential gains risks being hollowed against global commodification. Strategic reforms like conditional licensing, mandatory benefit sharing, and new evocation-based infringement clauses will shift the balance of power towards impoverished producers who are the lowest level of supply chain. Additionally, without cross-border enforcement, Indian GIs like Kolhapuri Chappal and Darjeeling Tea remain vulnerable to foreign misappropriation which leaves global brands to profit at expense of genuine creators. Thus, only when Indian artisans are given their fair share of recognition and compensation, genuine crafts will be globally sought after and our GI laws will have fulfilled the foundations of culturally vibrant and globally respected Bharat.
Footnotes
1. Vinaya Deshpande Pandit, Global fashion giant Prada acknowledges Kolhapuri inspiration, The Hindu (2025), https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/prada-finally-acknowledges-kolhapuri-chappals-inspiration-for-footwear-in-fashion-show/article69747610.ece (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
2. Devina Gupta, Prada: Why Indian footwear artisans are upset with the luxury Italian label, Bbc.com (2025), , Bbc.com (2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly801q2pw7o (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
3. "India Witnesses 44% Surge in IP Filings Over Five Years, Driven by Key Policy Reforms and Digitization, Pib.gov.in" (2025), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2146928 (last visited Sep 4, 2025).
4. Ibid.
5. Geographical Indication Tag Registrations in India Surpass 600, IP Helpdesk (2024), https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/geographical-indication-tag-registrations-india-surpass-600-2024-04-30_en?utm_source=chatgpt.com (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
6. The, Exploring India's diverse cultural heritage through GI tags | Data, The Hindu (2024), https://www.thehindu.com/data/exploring-indias-diverse-cultural-heritage-through-gi-tagsdata/article67723219.ece (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
7. Draft GI Amendment Rules, 2023 (Ministry of Commerce & Indus., draft notification Oct.–Nov. 2023).
8. Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire v. PRADA Group, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2681
9. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, § 22(1), No. 48 of 1999 (India).
10. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, § 11, No. 48 of 1999 (India).
11. Regulation - 1151/2012 - EN - EUR-Lex, Europa.eu (2022), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1151/oj/eng (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
12. Hilde VAUTMANS, REPORT on a new EU-China strategy | A9-0252/2021 | European Parliament, Europa.eu (2021), , Europa.eu (2021), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-9-2021-0252_EN.html (last visited Sep 6, 2025).
13. Ibid.
14. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, § 9, No. 48 of 1999 (India).
15. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, § 22, No. 48 of 1999 (India).
16. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights art. 23, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1869 U.N.T.S. 299, 33 I.L.M. 1197 (1994).
17. Scotch Whisky Ass'n v. Klotz, Case C-44/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:415 (Ct. Justice June 7, 2018).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.