Authored By: Bhavanya E K
Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan University
Abstract
This article examines how Indian traditional fashion crafts are increasingly borrowed, renamed, and commercialised by global luxury brands without adequate attribution or benefit to the communities that preserve them. Using the Kolhapuri chappal controversy[1] as the central case study, the paper analyses whether Indian intellectual property law sufficiently protects traditional fashion expressions through geographical indications, copyright, design law and trademark law. It argues that the present framework protects names, brands and registered designs more effectively than it protects collective cultural identity. Indian law can restrain direct misuse of a geographical indication, but it remains weak where a luxury brand copies the visual language of a craft while avoiding its protected name.
Keywords: Cultural Appropriation, Indian Fashion Law, Geographical Indications, Kolhapuri Chappals, Traditional Cultural Expressions, Artisan Rights, Luxury Branding
Introduction
Fashion has always travelled. Motifs, fabrics, jewellery forms and footwear styles move across regions, markets and generations. However, in the luxury industry, this movement often becomes unequal. A traditional Indian craft may be treated as “ethnic” or “local” when sold by its own artisans, but the same craft becomes “minimal,” “bohemian” or “Scandinavian-inspired” when repackaged by a global brand. This article begins from that discomfort: the problem is not inspiration, but extraction without attribution.
Indian fashion heritage is vast. Kolhapuri chappals, Kullu shawls, Banarasi silk, Kanjeevaram sarees, Bandhani, Chikankari, jhumkas and several tribal ornaments[2] are not merely accessories. They carry geography, labour, memory and community histories, inherited techniques and regional identity. Many of these crafts are handmade by artisans whose economic position remains far weaker than the commercial value generated from their work. When a luxury brand borrows such aesthetics without naming the source or sharing benefits, the injury is not only economic. It is also cultural, because the craft is separated from the community that gave it meaning.
The recent controversy over Prada’s Kolhapuri-inspired sandals[3] brought this issue into sharp focus. The objection was not simply that a foreign fashion house had used an Indian footwear style. The deeper legal question was whether Indian law can respond when the protected name “Kolhapuri” is avoided, but the distinctive design vocabulary of the chappal is still used in a luxury setting. This question exposes the limits of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999[4], the Copyright Act, 1957[5], the Designs Act, 2000[6] and the Trade Marks Act, 1999[7].
This paper argues that Indian intellectual property law presently protects commercial identity better than cultural identity. Through statutory analysis and case law including Ritika Private Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd,[8] Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co[9], Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker[10], Crocs Inc USA v Bata India Ltd[11] and the Darjeeling GI dispute[12], it shows that traditional fashion needs a legal approach based not only on ownership, but also on attribution, consent and fair benefit-sharing.
Background
Cultural appropriation in fashion refers to the use of cultural symbols, designs, garments, accessories or craft techniques of a community by outsiders, especially when such use happens without proper credit, consent or benefit-sharing. It must be distinguished from cultural appreciation. Appreciation involves respectful engagement, acknowledgement of origin and, where possible, collaboration with the community. Appropriation, on the other hand, occurs when a cultural expression is detached from its roots and converted into a marketable style for private profit.
Indian traditional fashion crafts fall within what international intellectual property discussions call Traditional Cultural Expressions.[13] Their difficulty lies in the fact that they do not usually have one identifiable author. They are collective, intergenerational and often oral or practice-based. Modern intellectual property law, however, is built mainly around individual ownership, originality, registration and limited commercial rights. This creates a mismatch between living heritage and legal protection.
The Kolhapuri chappal is a useful example of this mismatch. It is not merely a sandal design. It represents regional leather craftsmanship, hand-cut patterns, local skill and the identity of artisan clusters from Maharashtra and Karnataka. Its value is tied to place and community, which is why geographical indication protection becomes important. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 protects goods whose quality, reputation or characteristics are essentially linked to a geographical origin[14]. Similarly, Indian crafts such as Kanjeevaram silk, Banarasi sarees and Kullu shawls show how fashion products can carry a place-based reputation.
However, GI protection alone does not solve every problem. It may prevent unauthorised commercial use of a protected geographical name[15], but it becomes weaker when a brand copies the appearance, technique or aesthetic language of a craft without using the GI name. Copyright law may protect artistic elements such as sketches, motifs or textile prints[16], while design law may protect new and registered product designs[17]. Trademark law may protect brand identity, certification marks[18]. Yet none of these frameworks fully captures the cultural harm caused when a traditional craft is rebranded as luxury without naming or benefiting its source community.
III. Legal Analysis
The legal difficulty in protecting Indian traditional fashion lies in the fact that cultural heritage does not fit comfortably into one branch of intellectual property law.
The Prada–Kolhapuri[19] controversy shows the limitation of this framework. If a luxury brand directly uses the protected name “Kolhapuri”[20] for sandals not made by authorised producers, the GI claim becomes stronger. But if the brand simply presents a similar-looking leather sandal and calls it a “leather sandal,” the legal position becomes more complicated. The cultural borrowing is visible, but the legal wrong is harder to prove. This is because GI law is strongest when the geographical indication itself is misused. It is weaker when the visual grammar of the craft is copied without using the protected geographical name. Therefore, GI law protects the label of heritage more effectively than the look and feel of heritage.
Copyright law also offers only partial protection. Under the Copyright Act, 1957, artistic works such as drawings, motifs, sketches and textile prints may be protected[21]. In fashion, this can protect a designer’s sketch or a specific original print. However, traditional fashion designs are often collective and intergenerational. They may not have one identifiable author. Further, Section 15(2) of the Copyright Act limits copyright protection[22] where a design capable of registration under the Designs Act is industrially reproduced more than fifty times. This rule was central in cases such as Ritika Private Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd[23]and Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co[24]. These cases show that once a fashion design enters industrial production, copyright may give way to design law.
This creates a serious problem for artisan communities. Traditional crafts are often repeatedly produced as part of livelihood and community practice. Their repetition is not a sign that the craft lacks creativity; it is the very method by which heritage survives. Yet copyright law may treat repeated commercial reproduction as a reason to limit protection. This shows a mismatch between the law’s idea of originality and the nature of traditional fashion.
The Designs Act, 2000 is also relevant[25] because footwear shapes, jewellery forms, textile patterns and ornamental features may qualify as designs if they are new or original and applied to an article. However, design law is not well-suited to age-old crafts. A traditional jhumka or Kolhapuri chappal may be distinctive, but it may not be “new” in the strict statutory sense. The law rewards novelty, while traditional fashion often gains value precisely because it is old, recognised and continuously practised. Moreover, registration requires legal knowledge, documentation and resources, which many artisan clusters do not possess. A global luxury brand may have the legal infrastructure to register and enforce design rights, while the original craft community may remain outside formal protection.
Trademark law protects marks, names, logos, shapes, packaging, colour combinations and trade dress that distinguish one trader’s goods from another[26]. In luxury fashion, trademark law is extremely powerful. The decision in Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker[27] shows how a luxury brand can receive strong protection for a distinctive brand identifier such as the red sole. Similarly, disputes involving brands like Crocs[28] show how modern fashion companies can use design and passing-off arguments to protect product identity. This reveals a striking imbalance. A luxury brand’s colour, logo or product shape may be protected with legal sophistication, but a traditional community’s cultural identity may struggle because it is not organised as a single commercial brand.
A counterargument must be considered. Fashion has always drawn inspiration from cultures, and excessive restriction may limit creativity. Not every use of Indian aesthetics by a foreign brand should automatically be treated as unlawful appropriation. The law cannot and should not prohibit all inspiration. However, this argument fails when inspiration becomes extraction. The ethical and legal concern arises when a brand uses recognisable traditional craft elements, removes their cultural identity, sells them at luxury prices and gives no credit or benefit to the communities that preserved them.
Therefore, the central gap in Indian law is fragmentation. Each law protects one part of the craft, but none fully protects the craft as living heritage. To address cultural appropriation in fashion, Indian law must move beyond the question “Who owns this design?” and also ask: “Who preserved this craft, who benefits from its commercial use, and who is erased when it is rebranded?”
Judicial and Comparative Analysis: How Courts Protect Brand Identity More Easily than Cultural Identity
In Ritika Private Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd[29], the Delhi High Court dealt with the overlap between copyright and design protection in fashion garments. The case is important because it shows that once a design capable of registration under the Designs Act[30] is industrially reproduced beyond the statutory limit, copyright protection may not continue in the same manner. Similarly, in Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co[31], the court clarified that copyright law cannot be used to create an endless monopoly over designs that properly fall within design law. These cases make sense in ordinary commercial fashion, but they create a problem for traditional crafts. Indian artisans often repeat the same motifs, cuts and patterns not because they lack originality, but because repetition is how the craft survives.
In contrast, Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd[32] shows that Indian law can protect fashion creativity where there is a clearly identifiable designer and a documented artistic work. The court recognised the value of original fashion drawings and their connection to finished garments. This is helpful for modern designers, but it also exposes a gap. A designer’s sketch may receive protection because authorship is clear, while a centuries-old craft may struggle because its authorship is collective.
Trademark law gives even stronger protection to luxury identity. In Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker[33], the Delhi High Court protected the famous red sole as a distinctive mark associated with the brand. The significance of this case is not merely that a luxury brand won protection. It shows that law is more comfortable protecting a single brand symbol than protecting a community’s cultural identity. A red sole may be legally recognised as a source identifier, but the visual identity of Kolhapuri chappals, jhumkas or traditional shawls may remain difficult to protect unless it is registered, branded or tied to a specific trader.
Footwear disputes such as Crocs Inc USA v Bata India Ltd[34] also demonstrate how product shapes can become the subject of design and passing-off claims. This is useful for comparison with Kolhapuri chappals. A modern footwear company can identify itself as the owner of a design and sue competitors. But in the case of Kolhapuri chappals, the question is more complicated: who speaks for the craft, who owns the design language, and who has the financial ability to litigate?
The limits of geographical indication protection can be seen from the Darjeeling tea disputes, particularly Tea Board, India v ITC Ltd[35]. The case shows that GI protection is strongest when the protected name is used in relation to goods in a misleading manner[36]. However, where the use is indirect or outside the exact product category, enforcement becomes more difficult. This is directly relevant to traditional fashion. If a brand avoids the word “Kolhapuri” but adopts the sandal’s recognisable form, the cultural copying may be visible, but the legal claim may still be uncertain.
A useful international comparison is Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd[37], where Aboriginal artworks were copied onto carpets without permission. The Australian court recognised that such copying caused not only commercial harm but also cultural harm[38]. This approach is important for India because traditional fashion is not merely an economic product. It carries dignity, memory and community identity. Indian law therefore needs to move beyond ordinary market confusion and recognise cultural erasure as a serious legal concern.
Critical Analysis
The central finding of this paper is that Indian intellectual property law protects traditional fashion only in fragments. However, traditional fashion is not fragmented in real life. When law separates these elements, it protects the product incompletely.
This gap benefits large fashion houses more than artisan communities. Luxury brands usually have legal teams, documentation, registration strategies and international market access. Artisan clusters, on the other hand, often work through informal systems, inherited knowledge and local supply chains. Even where a craft has geographical indication protection, enforcement depends on awareness, organisation and the ability to approach courts. The dismissal of challenges on procedural or standing grounds[39] shows that the existence of a right is not the same as the ability to enforce it.
The deeper weakness is that Indian IP law is still largely market-centred. It asks whether there is consumer confusion, infringement of a registered right, copying of a protected design or misuse of a mark. These questions do not fully address cultural erasure. A luxury brand may avoid using the protected name of a craft and still copy its recognisable aesthetic. In such cases, the community may feel wronged, but the legal remedy may remain uncertain.
Therefore, reform should not aim to stop cultural exchange. Fashion must remain creative and open. The aim should be to make borrowing more responsible. Indian law should encourage mandatory attribution where identifiable traditional crafts are used, promote licensing and collaboration with artisan bodies, strengthen GI enforcement, create official databases of traditional fashion crafts[40] and develop benefit-sharing models. The future of fashion law must recognise that heritage is not raw material for luxury branding; it is living identity.
Conclusion
Indian traditional fashion has always carried more than aesthetic value. It carries geography, memory, labour and the dignity of artisan communities. The growing use of Indian craft elements by global luxury brands shows that cultural exchange in fashion is inevitable, but it must not become cultural extraction. The present Indian intellectual property framework offers certain protection. However, it remains incomplete because they protect names, marks and registered designs more easily than they protect collective cultural identity.
The Kolhapuri controversy reveals this gap clearly. A craft may be globally recognisable and culturally rooted, yet legally vulnerable when its visual identity is borrowed without its protected name. Therefore, the future of fashion law must move beyond narrow ownership and include attribution, consent, collaboration and benefit-sharing. Indian heritage should not merely appear on luxury runways as unnamed inspiration. It must be credited as living tradition, and valued as the work of the artisan community who kept it alive.
Reference(S):
[1] Penelope MacRae, ‘Prada accused of cashing in on Indian culture with Kolhapuri-inspired sandals’ (The Guardian, 30 June 2025) accessed 8 June 2026.
[2] Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ‘Registered Geographical Indications of India’ (IP India, latest available list) accessed 8 June 2026
[3] Munsif Vengattil and Manvi Pant, ‘Sandal scandal: Prada credits new design’s Indian legacy amid furore’ (Reuters, 30 June 2025) accessed 8 June 2026.
[4] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999.
[5] Copyright Act 1957.
[6] Designs Act 2000.
[7] Trade Marks Act 1999.
[8] Ritika Private Ltd v Biba Apparels Pvt Ltd CS(OS) 182/2011 (Delhi High Court, 23 March 2016).
[9] Microfibres Inc v Girdhar & Co 2009 (40) PTC 519 (Del).
[10] Christian Louboutin SAS v Abubaker and Ors CS(COMM) 714/2016 (Delhi High Court, 2018).
[11] Crocs Inc USA v Bata India Ltd and connected matters (Delhi High Court); see also ‘Indian court allows Crocs to pursue infringement challenges’ (Reuters, 2 July 2025) accessed 8 June 2026.
[12] Tea Board, India v ITC Ltd CS No 250 of 2010 (Calcutta High Court, 2011).
[13] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Traditional Cultural Expressions’ (WIPO) accessed 8 June 2026.
[14] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 2(1)(e).
[15] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, ss 21–22.
[16] Copyright Act 1957, ss 2(c), 13.
[17] Designs Act 2000, ss 2(d), 4, 11.
[18] Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 2(1)(e), 2(1)(zb), 29.
[19] Vengattil and Pant (n 2)
[20] Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, ‘Kolhapuri Chappal: Geographical Indication Registration Details’ (GI Registry/IP India) accessed 8 June 2026.
[21] Copyright Act 1957, ss 2(c), 13.
[22] Copyright Act 1957, s 15(2).
[23] Ritika Private Ltd (n 8).
[24] Microfibres Inc (n 9).
[25] Designs Act 2000, ss 2(d), 4, 11.
[26] Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 2(1)(zb), 29.
[27] Christian Louboutin SAS (n 10).
[28] Crocs Inc USA (n 11)
[29] Ritika Private Ltd (n 8)
[30] Designs Act 2000, s 2(d)
[31] Microfibres Inc (n 9).
[32] Rajesh Masrani v Tahiliani Design Pvt Ltd 2008 (38) PTC 251 (Del)
[33] Christian Louboutin SAS (n 10).
[34] Crocs Inc USA (n 11).
[35] Tea Board, India (n 12).
[36] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act 1999, s 22.
[37] Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1994) 54 FCR 240.
[38] ibid
[39] PIL against “Kolhapuri-like” Prada sandals dismissed by Bombay High Court’ (The Times of India, 16 July 2025) accessed 8 June 2026.
[40] World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions’ (WIPO) accessed 8 June 2026
