The Prada–Kolhapuri Dispute: A Case of Cultural Appropriation or Creative Inspiration?

In recent times, the global fashion industry has increasingly drawn inspiration from traditional art forms and indigenous craftsmanship. However, this blending of modern aesthetics with cultural heritage does not always result in appreciation; it often raises concerns about appropriation, exploitation, and disregard for intellectual property rights. A prime example of this is the 2025 controversy involving the luxury Italian fashion brand Prada and India’s iconic Kolhapuri chappals. What seemed like a design homage to Indian footwear culture soon turned into a full-fledged ethical and legal debate over misattribution, disrespect, and the misuse of traditional knowledge.

The Legacy of Kolhapuri Chappals

Kolhapuri chappals are traditional handcrafted leather slippers originating from the towns of Kolhapur in Maharashtra and nearby regions in Karnataka. These footwear items are known for their sturdy build, unique leatherwork, and distinctive open-toe design with intricate braiding. For centuries, these chappals have not only been a symbol of regional pride but also an important source of livelihood for thousands of local artisans.

Unlike mass-produced footwear, each Kolhapuri chappal is made through a detailed manual process, often involving multiple families or community clusters. The craft is passed down through generations and is deeply woven into the social and economic fabric of rural Maharashtra and Karnataka. This traditional craft has been nurtured for generations, becoming an integral part of both the cultural identity and livelihood of communities across rural Maharashtra and Karnataka.

Prada’s Release and the Spark of Controversy

In early 2025, Prada introduced a new sandal collection during Milan Fashion Week, where one particular design immediately caught the attention of fashion experts and cultural observers. The sandal showcased by Prada looked strikingly similar to the traditional Kolhapuri chappal, not only in its shape but also in its intricate leather detailing and overall aesthetic. While the brand mentioned it was inspired by Indian handcrafted footwear, there was no reference to Kolhapur, the skilled artisans behind the design, or the rich cultural heritage it represents.

This vague attribution prompted swift backlash from both Indian commentators and global critics. While inspiration in fashion is common and even celebrated, the complete absence of credit to the origin community struck many as exploitative. The failure to acknowledge the source of the design and, more importantly, to benefit or collaborate with those who created it ignited a firestorm of ethical questions. Social media platforms, op-eds, and legal experts quickly weighed in, framing the issue as one of cultural appropriation rather than respectful admiration.

Does GI Law Offer Legal Recourse?

Under the GI Act, authorised users have the exclusive right to use the GI on goods for which the indication is registered. Section 21(1)(b) and Section 22 of the Act prohibit unauthorized usage that either misleads the public about a product’s geographical origin or results in unfair competition. At a glance, it would seem that Prada, being neither an Indian manufacturer nor an authorised GI user, may have crossed a legal boundary.

However, the legal reality is more nuanced. Prada never marketed or labeled its footwear as “Kolhapuri Chappals.” Its public statement explicitly clarified that the design was inspired by Indian traditions, without using the GI tag itself. This distinction is critical.

In contrast, GI infringement typically occurs when a product is labeled or presented in a way that suggests a false geographical origin. For example, in the Scotch Whisky case involving Indian distillers using the word “Scotch” for local liquor, the Delhi High Court barred the use of the term due to its direct link with Scotland. But Prada’s case doesn’t align with this precedent; there was no deliberate or misleading branding of the product as Kolhapuri.

Furthermore, the GI Act’s “passing off” clause (Section 22(1)(b)), which draws from trademark principles, also does not clearly apply. In Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd., the Calcutta High Court explained that for a successful “passing off” claim, there must be deceptive similarity in branding, along with overlapping markets or consumer bases. Prada’s sandals target a completely different demographic, are sold through entirely different channels, and are priced in a way that makes confusion highly unlikely. Therefore, legally, Prada’s collection, although ethically questionable, likely does not constitute GI infringement.

Kolhapuri GI and Future Protection Strategies

Despite its limitations, GI protection remains a valuable starting point. The TRIPS framework allows room for expanding GI protection, including attributes like reputation and quality. India’s current legal environment doesn’t yet protect visual design or product features unless they are novel inventions (as required under patent law) or new, original designs (as per the Designs Act). Unfortunately, traditional crafts by their very nature fall outside these definitions.

In 2017, the Maharashtra government even considered patenting Kolhapuri chappals, only to discover the legal framework did not support such a move. This leaves artisans in a difficult place: they cannot patent their ancestral techniques, nor can they stop foreign brands from drawing “inspiration” from their work.

Still, all hope is not lost. GIs can be effectively used in combination with branding, cooperative models, and public awareness. The Union Government has proposed initiatives like the “One District One Product” (ODOP) scheme and “Unity Malls” to promote GI-tagged items. If implemented properly, such platforms could give a global boost to local products.

Ethical Concerns: Appropriation vs. Appreciation

At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental ethical dilemma. Was Prada merely taking inspiration from an ancient design tradition, or was it appropriating a cultural artifact for commercial gain without giving due recognition or compensation? Cultural appropriation is a concept that involves taking elements from a culture, especially one that has been historically marginalized or colonized, and using them in a way that is disconnected from their original meaning or purpose.

In this case, Kolhapuri chappals are not just aesthetic items but represent an entire artisanal ecosystem rooted in identity, heritage, and economic survival. By marketing a high-end version of the Kolhapuri sandal without collaboration or credit, Prada was seen as diluting the value of the original craft and its community. Critics noted that global brands have a responsibility to ensure ethical sourcing and cultural sensitivity, especially when profiting from designs that have deep-rooted historical and social significance. Transparency and fair engagement with the source community are essential to avoid the perception and the reality of exploitation.

Artisan Voices and the Role of MACCIA

The most affected by this controversy were undoubtedly the Indian artisans who make Kolhapuri chappals. For them, the issue was not just about design theft but about decades of neglect by both domestic markets and, now, international corporations. Many artisans expressed disappointment that their craft had been showcased on a world stage without their involvement or acknowledgment. Local organizations supporting handicraft workers pointed out that while luxury fashion houses like Prada profit from such designs, the actual makers continue to struggle with poverty, inconsistent demand, and lack of institutional support.

The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) took a proactive step by addressing the issue formally. They sent a letter to Prada inviting them to engage in a conversation with the artisan community and consider collaborations that would benefit both parties. Among the proposals were suggestions for launching a co-branded Kolhapuri-inspired line, entering into fair-trade agreements, and offering design training or cultural exchange programs to support local innovation.

What Now? Prada, Collaborations, and the Road Ahead

Interestingly, the controversy may yet yield positive results. In the wake of the backlash, Prada has reportedly opened discussions with artisan groups and the Maharashtra government for co-branding opportunities. Whether this leads to meaningful partnerships or is merely a public relations move remains to be seen. Yet, the incident has undeniably shone a spotlight on the potential of Kolhapuri chappals in the global marketplace.

Meanwhile, the Maharashtra government has begun pushing for GI registration of over 30 more regional products, suggesting a shift in strategy. Perhaps the outrage was a wake-up call, proof that even a centuries-old tradition can become globally relevant if properly supported and protected.

The Road Ahead: Responsibility and Reform

For Prada, the path forward involves a critical choice. The brand can either ignore the controversy and continue business as usual or take meaningful steps to correct course. Ethical business practices would dictate that Prada should acknowledge the inspiration behind its sandal, partner with Indian artisans or cooperatives, and potentially share profits or provide grants for artisan development. Such actions would set a new precedent for responsible luxury fashion, one that values the origin of creativity as much as the end product.

On the policy front, Indian lawmakers and stakeholders need to reconsider the scope of GI laws. There is a growing need to amend current legislation so that visual design, construction style, and material composition also receive legal protection under the umbrella of traditional knowledge. Globally, India could lead a coalition of countries pushing for WIPO treaties that broaden protection for cultural expressions, ensuring that no community is left voiceless in the face of global commercialization.

Consumers, too, have a role to play. By questioning the sourcing of the products they buy and choosing to support ethically produced alternatives, consumers can shift the demand curve in favor of transparency, fairness, and cultural respect.

Conclusion: A Case Study in Legal Limits and Cultural Power

The Prada–Kolhapuri incident reveals the growing intersection between intellectual property, traditional knowledge, and global commerce. While no clear legal case of GI infringement exists, the episode is a powerful reminder of how fragile our current laws are in the face of cultural commodification. For Kolhapuri chappal artisans, the legal system offers little protection beyond a name, and even that is barely enforced.

Yet, paradoxically, the controversy has also sparked renewed interest in the product. Sales of Kolhapur’s have seen an uptick since the news broke, perhaps validating the old saying, “any publicity is good publicity.” But for this momentum to last, India’s GI regime must evolve beyond registration formalities to become a true engine of economic justice, cultural respect, and global awareness.

Author details: Sneha Jain