From Prada to the Gamcha Debate: Evaluating the Protection of Traditional Cultural Expressions under Intellectual Property Law

ABSTRACT

As traditional cultural expressions have become more and more part of international fashion, there has been a lot of controversy regarding who owns the traditional cultural expression, who is able to attribute it, and which of the traditional values should be covered by an intellectual property right. The recent furor over Prada’s use of Kolhapur-inspired sandals and debates over the commercialization of traditional Indian fabrics like the gamcha also point to an emerging conflict between cultural heritage, claiming credit and the business of fashion innovation. This article focuses on the protection of traditional cultural expressions in the context of the fashion industry and explores whether the current intellectual property system, in particular geographical indications, copyright, design protection, and international IP instruments, such as the TRIPS agreement, is sufficient to effectively protect TCEs in this field. The article examines the effectiveness of current legal mechanisms through a doctrinal and comparative research approach by analysing the relevant statutes, case law and current fashion debates. It suggests that although there is some level of protection in the existing frameworks, there are significant gaps in the areas of attribution, community rights and international enforcement, which require a more holistic approach to the protection of cultural heritage in global markets for fashion.

Keywords: Fashion Law, Intellectual Property, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Geographical Indications, Cultural Heritage, Luxury Fashion, TRIPS Agreement.

1. Introduction

Traditional cultural expressions, indigenous craftsmanship and designs based on heritage from different communities around the world have become a growing source of inspiration for the global fashion industry. These cultural elements not only add to the aesthetic appeal of fashion but also reflect the identity, history, and collective knowledge of the communities they come from. However, with the increasing commercialization of such cultural representations, ownership, attribution, and protection under intellectual property law are becoming significant issues.

These issues have been put more in the spotlight recently by controversies. When Kolhapuri sandals were presented at Milan Fashion Week without any prior mention of their traditional roots, it sparked a discussion about the use of traditional Indian craftsmanship without proper cultural context. The commercial use of traditional Indian fabrics like the Gamcha for similar purposes has also raised issues about cultural visibility, proper recognition, and safeguarding of communities’ traditional knowledge in the international fashion industry. These developments show a growing conflict between innovation and traditional cultural heritage.

From a legal standpoint, there are questions as to whether current IP frameworks are sufficient. Various mechanisms, such as geographical indications, copyright protection, design rights, and international agreements like the TRIPS Agreement, offer certain types of protection, but their success in protecting TCEs is still a matter of debate. Traditional cultural expressions are not typically covered within the boundaries of current IP frameworks, which can lead to a lack of protection and enforcement.

In light of this, the aim of the current paper is to consider whether current IP systems are sufficient to safeguard TCEs in the global fashion industry. Based on an analysis of pertinent legislation, international instruments, precedent and recent fashion debates, the article assesses current legal tools and their effectiveness, and proposes the need for a more comprehensive framework for cultural heritage protection.

2. Background and Conceptual Framework

Intellectual property (IP) law plays a crucial role in the fashion industry, safeguarding creativity, innovation, and brand identity. Fashion Law is a multi-disciplinary subject covering a number of legal regimes such as trademark law, copyright law, design protection, and geographical indications. These mechanisms are put in place to protect original creations and prevent unauthorized commercialization. Their role becomes more complex, however, in the context of traditional cultural expressions, which are collectively owned and passed down through generations rather than stemming from a single identifiable author.

Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) are the artistic, cultural and creative expressions of communities, reflecting their cultural heritage, knowledge, and identity.¹ Unlike conventional intellectual property, TCEs can encompass traditional texts, crafts, embroidery techniques, motifs, folklore, and music handed down across generations. Because they are owned and developed collectively by communities rather than by individuals, they are harder to protect under legal regimes created mainly for individual creators and commercial enterprises.

Geographical Indications (GIs) have become an important tool for safeguarding products from a specific geographical area and traditional production methods in India. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 aims to safeguard the reputation and authenticity of GIs by associating them with their geographic origin.² Products such as Kolhapuri Chappals, Banarasi Silk, and Assamese Gamosa illustrate the potential of cultural heritage being recognised and protected under the GI framework, but the scope of GI coverage remains narrow and does not fully address cultural attribution and benefit-sharing issues.

At the international level, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provides intellectual property protection for geographical indications, but not for TCEs in any way explicitly adapted to their protection.³ This has led to ongoing discussion about the effectiveness of current legal frameworks in the context of a globalizing fashion industry.

3. Legal Analysis

The growing use of traditional cultural expressions in modern fashion brings into question the suitability of current IP systems. Traditional cultural expressions such as textiles, embroidery techniques, handicrafts and local designs are expressions of collective cultural heritage passed from one generation to the next. Most IP regimes, however, were not created to safeguard communities. This raises serious legal issues when traditional cultural elements are taken up by global fashion brands for commercial use.

The most significant provision in this area is the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999. Products with geographical indications can be those with a certain quality, reputation, or characteristic attributable to a specific geographical area. Kolhapuri Chappals, Banarasi Silk, and Assamese Gamosa are among the products recognized under the GI framework. The GI system is an important tool for preserving authenticity and preventing unauthorised commercial exploitation. However, GI protection is territorial in nature and is used mainly to protect the name and reputation of a product, not the broader cultural expressions associated with it.

The recent furor over Prada’s presentation of Kolhapuri-inspired sandals is a case in point of these drawbacks.⁴ While Kolhapuri Chappals have GI protection in India, public criticism arose over the initial presentation, which did not acknowledge the cultural origin of the design. Use of protected geographical indications can be prevented where there is direct misuse of the name, but this does not necessarily cover questions of attribution, cultural recognition, or adaptation by international fashion houses. This illustrates the difference between legal protection and ethical responsibility in fashion.

Copyright law poses other issues. The Copyright Act, 1957 provides protection for original artistic works produced by identifiable authors.⁵ Traditional cultural expressions, by contrast, are typically a collective creation that may have taken centuries to develop, with no clear individual author. Consequently, numerous traditional motifs, textile patterns and craft techniques may not be protected by conventional copyright. Where no identifiable ownership exists, it becomes difficult to enforce rights against unauthorised commercial use.

Likewise, the Designs Act, 2000 protects novel and original industrial designs.⁶ Designers can obtain protection for modern adaptations of traditional elements, while the communities that have maintained those cultural expressions over time may receive no such protection. This can result in modern, commercial adaptations of a traditional design receiving stronger legal protection than the traditional design from which they originated.

The TRIPS Agreement specifies minimum requirements for intellectual property protection at the international level for member states. While TRIPS acknowledges rights relating to geographical indications and other IP rights, it does not contain a specific body of rules for traditional cultural expressions. As a result, protection is provided on an inconsistent basis from one jurisdiction to another, and enforcement varies accordingly.

These gaps are compounded by the wider debate over traditional Indian fabrics like the Gamcha. Traditional textiles often reflect cultural identity, local knowledge and historical significance. Current intellectual property regimes, however, are not well suited to recognising collective ownership and community interests, and this legal void grows as global fashion brands increasingly draw on diverse cultural traditions.

Geographical indications, copyright protection, design rights and international intellectual property instruments together offer some level of protection, but not enough to adequately safeguard traditional cultural expressions. The current system is focused mainly on individual ownership and commercial innovation, leaving little room to address who owns a given cultural resource, who benefits from its use, and how community rights should be recognised. The Prada controversy and the wider Gamcha debate therefore highlight the need for a more inclusive legal framework — one that protects cultural heritage while still allowing room for fashion innovation.

4. Case Law Discussion

A. Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters

One of the most significant cases addressing this tension is Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico in 2012. The dispute arose after Urban Outfitters began marketing products — including clothing, jewellery and accessories — under the name “Navajo,” with no connection to the Navajo Nation, sold under product names including “Navajo Hipster Panty” and “Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask.” The Navajo Nation alleged trademark infringement and misappropriation of Native American cultural heritage.

The Navajo Nation’s suit alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition and dilution under the Lanham Act. The litigation raised a broader question about the commercial appropriation of indigenous cultural identity by private companies, underscoring how vulnerable traditional cultural heritage can be to commercial exploitation where no adequate legal protection exists. The case remains highly relevant to modern fashion law for that reason.

The case did not proceed to trial. After the district court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, the parties reached a confidential settlement in September 2016. Because the matter settled rather than being decided on the merits, it did not produce binding appellate precedent — but it remains a widely cited illustration of the legal and reputational risk fashion brands face when using indigenous names and patterns without authorization.

B. Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.

Another notable fashion law case is Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2012). The dispute centered on the famous red lacquered sole of Louboutin footwear. Yves Saint Laurent sold monochrome shoes in which the red colorway was the only variation from its other designs; Louboutin claimed this infringed its trademark in the red sole.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a single color could serve as a trademark in the fashion industry where it had acquired secondary meaning and functioned as a source identifier. The court limited protection to red soles that contrast with the rest of the shoe, confirming that distinctive features of a fashion design may be protected as a trademark provided consumers link those features to a specific source.

This case is relevant here because it illustrates the robust legal protection available to commercial fashion brands over their own design innovations. Traditional cultural expressions, by contrast, may not receive comparable protection despite their significant cultural and economic value — a distinction that reflects one of the central paradoxes of modern fashion law and IP protection.

5. Discussion and Findings

The above analysis shows that current IP systems do not comprehensively protect TCEs in the fashion industry. Geographical indications, copyright and design rights provide some protection, but they are not sufficient to protect the particular features of community-based cultural heritage.

The current framework’s major drawback is its focus on individual ownership. Intellectual property regimes have generally been designed to protect identifiable creators, inventors or commercial entities. Traditional cultural expressions, by contrast, are collectively created and maintained within communities and passed down across generations. As a result, many traditional designs, motifs and craft techniques remain unprotected by conventional intellectual property rights, despite their considerable cultural and economic significance.

The Prada–Kolhapuri controversy illustrates this problem well. While Kolhapuri Chappals are protected as a geographical indication in India, the discussion around the controversy showed that legal recognition does not automatically translate into cultural attribution or meaningful economic opportunity for artisans. Current laws are mostly oriented toward preventing commercial exploitation of protected names, rather than guaranteeing recognition of cultural origin or fair participation by traditional communities in resulting commercial success.

The same issue applies to traditional textiles like the Gamcha. As heritage-inspired elements gain a larger presence in global fashion, questions of cultural appropriation, benefit-sharing and ethical trade become more pressing. Existing international instruments — including the TRIPS Agreement — offer only a partial response and do not provide a detailed, harmonized framework for protecting traditional cultural expressions.

Furthermore, the imbalance between commercial fashion brands and traditional communities is stark. Fashion houses receive broad protection for their trademarks, copyright and design rights, while communities that have maintained their own cultural expressions across generations often have no comparable legal protection. This imbalance raises questions of equity, cultural sustainability and economic justice.

From this analysis, it can be concluded that legal reform is needed so that intellectual property law moves beyond its conventional, individual-ownership orientation toward a more community-based approach. Such reforms should strengthen requirements around attribution, encourage benefit-sharing, and build on international initiatives — such as those led by WIPO — to make the global fashion system more effective at protecting TCEs.⁷

6. Conclusion

This article has examined the capacity of the present IP system to protect TCEs in the global fashion industry. The analysis shows that while some mechanisms exist — geographical indications, copyright protection, and the TRIPS Agreement — none is sufficient on its own to adequately protect TCEs, given that they are collectively created, culturally embedded, and intergenerational in nature.

The Prada–Kolhapuri controversy and the broader discussion around traditional clothing like the Gamcha highlight the growing tension around the commercialization of cultural heritage in contemporary fashion. These developments show that legal safeguards alone are not enough to ensure cultural attribution, recognition, and economic participation for traditional communities.

Based on this analysis, current legislation is not yet sufficiently developed to address the distinct nature of traditional cultural expressions. Future reform should strengthen attribution requirements, encourage benefit-sharing, and deepen international cooperation — including through bodies like WIPO. A more community-based approach is needed to balance fashion innovation with the preservation and respectful use of cultural heritage. Ultimately, the protection of traditional cultural expressions is central not only to IP governance but also to cultural sustainability and cultural justice in the globalized fashion industry.

Reference(S):

1. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/ accessed 8 June 2026.
2. Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.
3. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) 1869 UNTS 299.
4. BBC News, ‘Why Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandal Controversy Matters for India’s Artisans’ (BBC News, 2025) https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz6m89x7eo accessed 8 June 2026.
5. Copyright Act 1957.
6. Designs Act 2000.
7. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Traditional Cultural Expressions (WIPO) https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/ accessed 8 June 2026.