On June 22, 2025, during the Milan Fashion Week, luxury fashion house Prada unveiled its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection at the Deposito of the Fondazione Prada in Milan. While the event attracted significant attention from the global fashion community, Prada soon made headlines for reasons beyond the runway.

As part of its Spring/Summer 2026 collection, Prada introduced a series of flat, T-strap leather sandals that bore a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri chappals of India. The collection also featured leather toe rings, a characteristic design element that further mirrored the distinct designs of Kolhapuri footwear.

Kolhapuri Chappals are handmade footwear made of vegetable tanned leather produced using traditional technique and tools and are renowned for their aesthetically pleasing look of open Indian footwear and recognized for its decorative woven pattern. In recognition of their unique cultural significance and craftsmanship, Kolhapuri chappals have been granted a Geographical Indication Tag under No. 169 dated 11.12.2018 in the name of Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Limited (LIDCOM) & Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Limited (LIDKAR).

In light of this, this article examines the legal implications of Prada’s use of such practically identical/deceptively similar designs under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (Act).

Understanding Geographical Indication

 A Geographical Indication (GI) is an indication that identifies goods as originating from a specific region, where a particular quality, reputation, or characteristic is linked to its geographic origin. Such indication could include any name, geographical or figurative representation, or any combination thereof that conveys or suggests the geographical origin of the goods to which it applies. Kolhapuri Chappal is one such GI.

Section 21 of the Act vests the authorised user with the exclusive right to the use the geographical indication in relation to the goods in respect of which the geographical indication is registered. Hence, use by any person, without authorization would constitute infringement & passing off of the geographical indication vested in the product concerned.

Section 22 of the Act, categorically states that a registered geographical indication is infringed by a person who, not being an authorised user thereof,—

“…(a) uses such geographical indication by any means in the designations or presentation of goods that indicates or suggests that such goods originate in a geographical area other than the true place of origin of such goods in a manner which misleads the persons as to the geographical origin of such goods; or

(b) uses any geographical indication in such manner which constitutes an act of unfair competition including passing off in respect of registered geographical indication…”

 Is there infringement?

The next question that arises, is whether Prada has infringed upon the GI in the Kolhapuri Chappal.

Put simply, the mere sale of such products by Prada, without directly using the Geographical Indication (GI) tag or name “Kolhapuri Chappal”, may not amount to infringement in terms of Section 22 of the Act. However, the issue here is one of evocation. The case presents a unique scenario where the product in itself, or its nature, clearly suggests its geographical origin. The key question that arises is regarding the scope of the Act and whether such products be protected under the GI framework even when the geographical origin is implied through the nature of the product itself, rather than being branded.

To better understand this, juxtaposing the present situation with that of Scotch Whisky. In India, there have been several cases where different parties have been prevented from using terms like “Scotch”, “Scot”, or any similar word in reference to whiskey that evokes scotch whisky in the minds of the public. The key difference between the case of Scotch Whiskey and the present one lies in the nature of the product. With whiskey, the origin is not immediately apparent from the product itself, so branding becomes crucial. In contrast, in the current case, the product itself i.e., the Kolhapuri chappal inherently evokes its geographical origin simply through its design and craftsmanship, making the connection to its place of origin much more apparent to the consumer. The following illustrations further emphasize this point:

            Prada’s Product                                                      Kolhapuri Chappal

The design adopted by Prada unmistakably imitates the traditional Kolhapuri chappal, thereby evoking a direct association with its geographical origin. In such instances, it is not the brand that the general public recalls, but rather the distinct and culturally rooted appearance of the product itself.

In the present case, the line between taking inspiration and copying is blurred. Even if not sold as Kolhapuri Chappals (under the designation as such), the very design of the sandals introduced by Prada are an imitation of the traditional designs of Kolhapuri chappals. It is pertinent to note that the traditional designs, cuts and symbols on a Kolhapuri chappal are inherently distinctive and indicative of the origin. In fact, the designs and patterns of the Kolhapuri Chappal, particularly in the toe band and instep bands of the uppers, are traditionally passed down and are popularly known by several names such as Kapsi, Kanwalis, Benta, Kurundwadi, Shahu Maharaj, Dhanagari, Chapli, Nachemayuri, Tipu etc.

Conclusion

This case has revealed an aspect that may require addressal at the Legislative front to protect the traditional artisans. Otherwise, this would undermine the core purpose of GI protection and erode the essence of GI law, which is meant to protect and promote local communities and their cultural heritage. In cases like this, it is crucial to adopt a more expansive and culturally aware interpretation of “evocation” to preserve both the intent and integrity of the GI framework.