Bombay HC Dismisses PIL Seeking Action Against Prada for Alleged Misuse of Kolhapuri Chappal Design

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed against Italian luxury brand Prada over the alleged unauthorised commercialisation and misappropriation of the Kolhapuri Chappal, a traditional Indian footwear protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne held that the PIL was not maintainable.The Bench further went on to question the locus standi of the five advocates who filed the PIL, noting that they were neither directly affected by the issue nor the registered proprietors or owners of the footwear.

It added that an action can be brought by way of a civil suit by the registered proprietors of a Geographical Indication (GI) cannot be pursued through a PIL.

Notably, Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Limited, LIDCOM, and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Limited ( LIDKAR) are the registered proprietors of the GI in Kolhapuri Chappals. While LIDCOM is a Corporation under the administrative control of the Maharashtra Government, LIDKAR is a Karnataka Government Corporation.

It was noted that both entities are government organisations established to safeguard the welfare of artisans in the leather footwear industry and are well-equipped to assert their rights. “It is not the Petitioners’ case that, due to any social or economic disadvantage, the registered proprietors are unable to assert their rights through statutory remedies,” the Court added.

“We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present PIL,” the Court said, adding that the issue of deceptive similarity between PRADA’s footwear and the Kolhapuri Chappal involved disputed questions of fact.

Such disputes, the Court added, require leading of evidence and cannot be examined in a PIL filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.“This is yet another reason why we decline to entertain the petition,” it held.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam, appearing for Prada, argued that no element of public interest was involved in the case and that the appropriate remedy lies in a civil suit by the registered proprietors, LIDCOM and LIDKAR. He further submitted that the GI Act already provides adequate redressal mechanisms for infringement.

The instant PIL was filed by Intellectual Property Rights advocate Ganesh S Hingemire on July 2, 2025, claiming that Prada’s recently unveiled Spring/Summer 2026 collection featured ‘toe ring sandals’ that were “stylistically and culturally derived” from the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappal. The design, showcased at a fashion event in Milan on June 22, 2025, was reportedly being sold for over ₹1 lakh per pair.

According to the petition, “The matter concerned the misrepresentation, cultural misappropriation, [and] unauthorised commercialisation [of the] ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’... where its genuine origin, traditional custodianship and GI status were entirely overlooked.”

While Prada had acknowledged that its collection was “inspired by Indian artisans,” the petition asserted that the admission came only after widespread backlash on social media and was made privately rather than through any official communication to the artisans, the GI Registry, or the Government of India. “The brand had not yet issued any formal apology along with any damages, compensation, and entitled remedy, and the statement appeared to be merely a superficial attempt to deflect criticism,” the PIL stated.

The petition urged the court to issue directions for an injunction, public apology, and compensation to the affected artisan community, particularly in Maharashtra. It also called on government authorities to enforce GI protections more robustly and establish stricter mechanisms to prevent misuse of traditional Indian designs by international brands. “The Kolhapuri Chappal was the cultural symbol of Maharashtra and had special public sentiments attached to it,” the PIL emphasised.

It further sought to safeguard the cultural heritage, economic interests, and intellectual property rights of indigenous artisans and ensure recognition and redressal for unauthorised exploitation of GI products on global platforms.

Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group (PIL 72 of 2025)

Judgment Date: July 16, 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne