When the heritage-laden Kolhapuri chappal—a symbol of India’s artisanal pride—met with the polished branding of global fashion house Prada, the clash was not just of cultures but of the very concept of intellectual ownership. Yet, in the hallowed halls of the Bombay High Court, the matter seemed less about right and wrong and more about the locus of who could cry foul.

In what may appear to the layperson as a textbook David versus Goliath scenario, the Kolhapuri chappal, awarded a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in 2019, found itself allegedly replicated by Prada in the luxury label’s new men’s line of sandals, marketed with the panache expected of a global fashion brand but without any acknowledgement of its ethnic source. 

At first blush, it may seem far-fetched—a European luxury house like Prada being pitted against the rustic, handcrafted Kolhapuri chappal, steeped in the cultural soil of Maharashtra and Karnataka. But beneath the patent leather sheen of global fashion lies a simmering tussle, as indigenous heritage grapples with the branding juggernaut of high fashion.

The matter, rooted in a growing unease over the unbridled commodification of India’s cultural assets, culminated in legal scrutiny when a Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Bombay High Court. The PIL levelled serious allegations against Italian luxury fashion house Prada S.p.A, asserting that the brand had commercially exploited the term ‘Kolhapuri’—a Geographical Indication (GI) protected term—by launching an identical range of leather sandals. The petition argued that such usage by a foreign corporate entity, devoid of any connection to the historical or artisanal lineage of the Kolhapuri chappal, constituted a blatant infringement of the GI status conferred on the product under Indian law.

The petitioner contended that Prada’s use of the term was not just misleading to global consumers unfamiliar with the origin of the term but also posed a grave threat to the identity, distinctiveness and market share of the authentic Kolhapuri chappals handcrafted by traditional artisans in Maharashtra and Karnataka. The concern wasn’t just about appropriation—it was about erosion. Erosion of identity. Of legacy. Of livelihood. The unchecked commodification of a traditional Indian craft by a multinational luxury giant, the petitioner argued, diluted the value of the GI itself and laid the groundwork for a global precedent where similar violations could be normalised.

However, the Bombay High Court, while not........

© Eurasia Review