PRADA–KOLHAPURI PARADOX: A Critical Analysis of GI Protections Against Global Cultural Appropriation in the 2026

Abstract

Geographical Indications (GIs) function as intellectual property tools designed to protect products whose qualities or reputation are intrinsically linked to a specific geographical origin. In India, the protection of such products is governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. While the framework has enabled recognition of numerous traditional goods, it remains inadequate in addressing cultural misappropriation of traditional knowledge and expressions by global commercial entities. The controversy surrounding the alleged appropriation of Kolhapuri chappals by luxury brand Prada illustrates a complex legal paradox: although Kolhapuri chappals enjoy GI protection, traditional artisans remain vulnerable to cultural and economic exploitation. This paper critically examines the limitations of India’s GI framework through the lens of the “Prada–Kolhapuri paradox” and argues for the integration of Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) within the GI regime to protect the ‘soul’ of heritage rather than just its geographical label.

1. Introduction

In the contemporary global market, the “ethnic” has become a high-value aesthetic. However, for the artisans of India, this trend represents a double-edged sword: increased visibility often comes at the cost of “aesthetic theft.”

Globalisation has intensified the commercialisation of traditional cultural products, frequently resulting in disputes over ownership, cultural appropriation, and intellectual property protection. In India, several artisanal goods derive their identity from the cultural heritage and traditional knowledge of local communities.¹

One such example is the traditional leather footwear known as the Kolhapuri Chappal, historically produced in regions surrounding Kolhapur in Maharashtra and parts of Karnataka. These chappals received GI status in 2019 under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.²

Despite this protection, international fashion brands such as Prada have been accused of showcasing footwear designs closely resembling Kolhapuri chappals in global fashion collections.³ This situation highlights the inadequacy of existing GI laws in addressing cultural appropriation and protecting traditional communities.

Geographical Indications were envisioned as the primary legal shield for products whose reputation is intrinsically linked to their origin. Yet a paradox has emerged: a product can be legally protected under the GI Act, 1999, while its distinct visual motifs and cultural identity remain free for global conglomerates to appropriate.⁴

2. Geographical Indications: Background and Legal Framework

Geographical Indications identify goods whose quality, reputation, or characteristics are essentially attributable to their geographical origin. The concept received international recognition under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which obligates member states to provide legal protection for geographical indications.⁵

India enacted the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 to comply with these international obligations. The Act enables producers and associations to register geographical indications and prevent misleading use of such indications by unauthorised entities.⁶

Under section 2(1)(e) of the 1999 Act, a GI is defined as an indication identifying goods as originating in a territory where a specific quality or reputation is “essentially attributable” to that origin.⁷

Several Indian products have been granted GI protection, including Darjeeling Tea, Banarasi Saree, Pochampally Ikat, and Mysore Silk. These registrations aim to preserve the reputation of traditional products while promoting regional economic development.⁸

However, the conceptual framework of the GI Act is inherently mercantile. It treats the craft as a “good” and the heritage as a “reputation.” It fails to recognise the craft as a “cultural expression” — and that is precisely the loophole exploited to enable cultural appropriation.

3. Traditional Cultural Expressions

Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) refer to creative expressions developed and preserved by communities across generations. They include handicrafts, traditional designs, folklore, music, and other cultural manifestations.⁹

International organisations such as the World Intellectual Property Organization have recognised that conventional intellectual property systems often fail to adequately protect TCEs because such expressions are collectively owned and transmitted across generations.¹⁰ The WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore has been the principal international forum for developing TCE protections, though existing instruments remain limited in their enforceability against commercial appropriation by third parties.

The misappropriation of traditional designs by large commercial entities therefore raises significant concerns about cultural justice and equitable benefit-sharing.

4. The Prada–Kolhapuri Paradox

The controversy involving Prada and the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal demonstrates the limitations of the existing GI framework.

Although Kolhapuri chappals enjoy GI protection, the law primarily prevents misuse of the geographical name rather than protecting the traditional design itself.¹¹ Consequently, fashion brands may replicate the design while avoiding explicit reference to its geographical origin.

This phenomenon creates what may be described as the “Prada–Kolhapuri paradox,” where a product may be legally protected as a GI yet remain vulnerable to cultural appropriation in global markets.¹² The full judicial dimension of this controversy — and its confirmation of the law’s inadequacy — is examined in Section 6.6 below.

5. Legal Analysis: The 1999 Act and the 2025 Shift

5.1 The “Visual Identity Gap” in the GI Act

The core of the legal problem lies in section 22 of the 1999 Act. Infringement occurs only when a third party uses a registered GI in a manner that “misleads the public” as to the geographical origin of the goods.¹³

Analytically, this means that if a designer replicates the exact weave of a Sambalpuri saree but markets it as “Urban Chic: Made in Paris,” they are not infringing the GI. The law protects the indication (label), not the expression (the design).

5.2 The 2025 Amendment Rules: Ease without Essence

The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2025 focused heavily on procedural decentralisation.¹⁴ By slashing “authorised user” registration fees by 80%, the government successfully increased the number of registered artisans. However, these amendments are “procedural palliatives.” They make it easier to obtain a certificate, but do nothing to expand the scope of what that certificate protects against global appropriation.

5.3 International Benchmark: The EU CIGI Regulation

By contrast, the European Union’s Craft and Industrial GI (CIGI) Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/2411), which entered into force in 2024, has moved towards protecting the “traditional production process.”¹⁵ This international trend suggests that GI protection is evolving to cover the “how” and the “what,” whereas Indian law remains fixed on the “where.”

6. Judicial Approach to Geographical Indications

Indian courts have dealt with GI-related disputes mainly in the context of misleading commercial use and trademark conflicts.

6.1 Tea Board of India v ITC Limited (2011) 45 PTC 241 (Cal)

In this landmark case, the Tea Board of India (the GI holder for Darjeeling Tea) challenged the use of the term “Darjeeling” for a luxury lounge operated by ITC. The Calcutta High Court held that since the GI was registered for “goods” (tea) and ITC was providing a “service” (a lounge), there was no infringement.¹⁶

Legal principle: This established a restrictive, class-based interpretation of GI rights, which effectively means that cultural heritage is only protected within the narrow silos of specific trade categories. The case highlighted the challenges of enforcing GI rights when geographical terms are used outside their original context.

6.2 Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd (2006) 32 PTC 656 (Del)

The court emphasised that the use of geographical names in a misleading manner could amount to unfair competition.¹⁷ However, this decision, like most in the area, focuses on consumer deception rather than cultural appropriation.

6.3 The Basmati–RiceTec USPTO Dispute (1997–2001)

In the late 1990s, the American company RiceTec Inc. obtained a patent from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for certain rice lines and grains marketed under the name “Basmati.” The patent sparked significant debate in India because Basmati rice has traditionally been cultivated in the Indo-Gangetic plains and is deeply associated with the agricultural heritage of regions in northern India.¹⁸

The Indian government challenged the patent, arguing that the term “Basmati” referred to a traditional variety of rice with unique characteristics linked to a specific geographical region. Following diplomatic and legal pressure, several patent claims were withdrawn. This dispute — resolved through administrative and diplomatic channels rather than court proceedings — highlighted the vulnerability of traditional agricultural products in the absence of strong international GI protection mechanisms.¹⁹

6.4 The Alphonso Mango Dispute

The Alphonso mango is a premium variety traditionally cultivated in the Konkan region of Maharashtra. Alphonso mangoes have received GI status in India on account of their distinctive aroma, taste, and texture, which are associated with the coastal climatic conditions of the region. However, concerns have been raised regarding the misuse of the name “Alphonso” by traders selling mangoes grown in other regions.²⁰

6.5 Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De Champagne v. M/S Chinar Agro Fruit Products, CS(OS) 344/2013 (Delhi High Court, 2017)

In this case, the Delhi High Court protected the geographical indication “CHAMPAGNE” by restraining the defendant from using it on non-alcoholic drinks.

Ruling: The Court held that the use of “CHAMPAGNE” on non-alcoholic drinks violates the GI Act, 1999, specifically section 22, as it misleads consumers. The judgment affirmed that the protection for a registered GI such as “Champagne” is absolute and cannot be diluted by its use on non-alcoholic products.

6.6 The “Prada–Kolhapuri” Controversy (2025)

In early 2025, a legal firestorm erupted when a luxury house released sandals visually indistinguishable from the GI-tagged Kolhapuri footwear. Because the brand refrained from using the term “Kolhapuri,” the artisan collectives had no standing under the GI Act.²¹

Finding: This case serves as definitive proof that the current law is inadequate. It demonstrates that “aesthetic theft” is legally permissible under an origin-based IP regime.

7. Limitations of India’s GI Framework

Despite providing a valuable mechanism for protecting regional products, the GI regime in India suffers from several structural limitations.

7.1 Legislative Myopia

The law primarily protects geographical names rather than traditional designs or cultural expressions.²² This foundational design choice renders the entire framework incapable of addressing the most common form of modern cultural appropriation: the replication of aesthetic heritage without the use of a protected geographical name.

7.2 The Territoriality Trap

GI protection is strictly territorial. The enforcement of GI rights across international jurisdictions remains difficult due to the territorial nature of intellectual property protection.²³ Even with the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (2024), the enforcement of Indian GIs in foreign fashion capitals remains a logistical nightmare for rural collectives.

7.3 Economic Inequality

Artisans often lack the institutional support and financial resources necessary to pursue legal remedies against large corporations.²⁴ Cultural appropriation is, in effect, a “theft of value.” When a global brand appropriates a design, it captures the premium price, while the original creators — the GI holders — remain in a cycle of poverty, protected by a law that only prevents someone else from using their name.

7.4 The Design Disconnect

Artisans cannot seek protection under the Designs Act, 2000 because their crafts are “ancient” and lack the “novelty” required for registration under that Act. The law thus fails the very communities whose creative heritage it nominally acknowledges.

Taken together, these four limitations demonstrate the urgent need for a broader framework that integrates cultural protection within the GI regime.

Conclusion

The “Prada–Kolhapuri paradox” confirms that the current GI law is a relic of 20th-century trade logic being applied to 21st-century cultural conflicts. It is fundamentally inadequate because it treats culture as a commodity label rather than a communal identity. The protection of geographical indications represents an important mechanism for safeguarding traditional products and promoting regional economic development. However, the controversy surrounding Prada and Kolhapuri Chappal illustrates that GI protection alone cannot effectively prevent cultural appropriation.

A more comprehensive legal framework — one that integrates Traditional Cultural Expressions within the GI regime, extends protection to traditional designs and production processes, and provides accessible enforcement mechanisms for artisan communities — is therefore essential. Only through such reforms can traditional communities receive both the cultural recognition and economic benefit to which their heritage entitles them.

Bibliography

Books

• Ahuja VK, Law of Intellectual Property Rights (3rd edn, LexisNexis 2017)
• Gangjee D, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012)
• Gervais D, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012)
• Nair R, Geographical Indications: A Search for Identity (LexisNexis 2024)
• Sunder M, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012)

Journal Articles

• Agarwal N, ‘Cultural Appropriation and Intellectual Property Rights in Fashion’ (2021) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 455
• Bowman B, ‘The Basmati Rice Controversy: Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications’ (2001) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 449
• Gangjee D, ‘Geographical Indications and Cultural Heritage’ (2015) 21 International Journal of Cultural Property 256
• James TC, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications in India’ (2008) 13 Journal of World Intellectual Property 417
• James TC, ‘Geographical Indications and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge in India’ (2010) 5 Indian Journal of Law and Technology 1
• K P [author name incomplete — flag for correction], ‘Safeguarding Heritage: Basmati Rice Dispute’ LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research 3(2) 573
• Singh A, ‘The Prada Paradox: Analysis of Kolhapuri Chappal GI and Aesthetic Theft’ (2025) 12(2) IP Law Review India 104

Statutes and Rules

• Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
• Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2025
• Designs Act, 2000

International Treaties and Regulations

• Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299 (TRIPS)
• WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (adopted Geneva, May 2024)
• Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Geographical Indications for Craft and Industrial Products (CIGI Regulation), [2023] OJ L621/1

Cases

• Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd (2006) 32 PTC 656 (Del)
• Tea Board of India v ITC Limited (2011) 45 PTC 241 (Cal)
• Comite Interprofessionnel Du Vin De Champagne v M/S Chinar Agro Fruit Products, CS(OS) 344/2013 (Delhi High Court, 2017)

Newspaper Article

• Bella Jaisinghani, BB Nayak, Vijay V Singh, ‘Maha vs. Guj GI battle brews over king of fruits’ The Times of India (7 December 2025) <www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com> accessed 7 March 2026

Reports and Websites

• World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2017)
• <www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine>
• <www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com>
• <www.indiankanoon.org>
• <www.wipo.int>
• <www.casemine.com/judgement/in>
• <www.lawgratis.com>

Footnote(S):

¹ Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Geographical Indications (Cambridge University Press 2012) 35.

² Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s 11.

³ Nikhil Agarwal, ‘Cultural Appropriation and Intellectual Property Rights in Fashion’ (2021) 13 Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 455, 459.

⁴ R Nair, Geographical Indications: A Search for Identity (LexisNexis 2024) 112.

⁵ Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299, art 22.

⁶ Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

⁷ ibid, s 2(1)(e).

⁸ VK Ahuja, Law of Intellectual Property Rights (3rd edn, LexisNexis 2017) 322.

⁹ TC James, ‘Protection of Geographical Indications in India’ (2008) 13 Journal of World Intellectual Property 417, 420.

¹⁰ Madhavi Sunder, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice (Yale University Press 2012) 118.

¹¹ World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO 2017) 9.

¹² Daniel Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis (4th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 306.

¹³ Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, s 22.

¹⁴ Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) (Amendment) Rules, 2025.

¹⁵ Regulation (EU) 2023/2411 (CIGI Regulation), Recital 5.

¹⁶ Tea Board of India v ITC Limited (2011) 45 PTC 241 (Cal).

¹⁷ Scotch Whisky Association v Golden Bottling Ltd (2006) 32 PTC 656 (Del).

¹⁸ B Bowman, ‘The Basmati Rice Controversy: Intellectual Property and Geographical Indications’ (2001) 15 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 449, 455.

¹⁹ K P [author name incomplete], ‘Safeguarding Heritage: Basmati Rice Dispute’ LawFoyer International Journal of Doctrinal Legal Research 3(2) 573, 584.

²⁰ Bella Jaisinghani, BB Nayak, Vijay V Singh, ‘Maha vs. Guj GI battle brews over king of fruits’ The Times of India (7 December 2025) <www.timesofindia.indiatimes.com> accessed 7 March 2026.

²¹ A Singh, ‘The Prada Paradox: Analysis of Kolhapuri Chappal GI and Aesthetic Theft’ (2025) 12(2) IP Law Review India 104.

²² VK Ahuja (n8) 327.

²³ Dev Gangjee (n1) 112.

²⁴ TC James (n9) 424.