Kolhapur to Milan: The Story of Indigenous Creations being swept under the Rug of Recognition.

Abstract 

The Constitution of India under Article 19(1)(a) provides its citizens the freedom of speech and  expression. Articles 301 to 307 also establish the principles of freedom of trade, commerce,  and intercourse throughout the country. Arts and crafts are an essential tool of expression which  not only display the creativity and imagination of human beings but also represent the culture  and heritage of a country at national and international stages. It therefore becomes essential to  protect the rights of such craftsmen and give them the rightful recognition and rewards they  are entitled to for their original creation. The Author in this paper, through a Doctrinal study of  material and evidence breaks down the protective legal provisions under intellectual property  laws in the country for traditional handicraft artisans and how it does the job of being a safety  net for the brands violating and infringing the laws than a blanket protection for the original  stakeholders of the law, those being the craftsmen. The Author further insinuates the necessity  of raising awareness in rural India about geographical indications and the rights, duties, and  laws attached to them for a safer, well-protected, and more prosperous production system of  Indian goods and services. 

Keywords: Intellectual Property Rights, Geographical Indication, Community, Originality,  Recognition, Indigenous 

Introduction 

Indigenous creations have been an integral part of cultures, communities, and religious groups  since time immemorial, showcasing a country’s identity on national and international stages.  They are a sign not just of the unmatched creativity of human beings across the world but of  the freedom of expression of every citizen that they hold near and dear to their heart.  Manufacturers and producers of goods globally, time and again use these traditional cultural  expressions as their source of inspiration for products and profit generously from them. While  doing so, they often fail to acknowledge the origins of the designs and patterns, those being the  artisans, craftsmen, and creators of indigenous communities and regional groups in India. What  this leads to is an absence of any form of proper recognition or reward given to the same  communities. Traditional craftsmanship is the most tangible evidence and manifestation of any  community or cultural heritage. It is the delicate hands of a craftsperson creating a piece designed on the basis of the ideologies and daily life of their community, which when finalized  becomes the face of their culture, which defines who they are and what they wish to be  identified by. When global brands create products based on these indigenous designs under the  reason of using it as a “source of inspiration,” what they reveal is respect for a certain  community’s culture, and providing them a position and stature at a level they wouldn’t have  imagined. But this recognition that they allegedly wish to provide in certain instances gets  hidden behind the name and fame of the brand itself, and makes the design identifiable by that  particular brand and not the indigenous creation which was the source for it. 

Case Study: Kolhapuri Chappal at Prada Summer 2026 Menswear Show? 

On the 25th of June earlier this year, world-renowned fashion giant Prada hosted its Summer  2026 Menswear Show from the beautiful city of Milan, Italy. Among the various spectacular  designs showcased at the event, the spotlight fell on a simple “Open-Toe Ring Sandal” which  was deceptively similar to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal which finds its origins in the small  yet culturally dominant city of Kolhapur in Maharashtra, India. Kolhapuri Chappal represent a  centuries-old legacy of Indian craftsmen who The display of the toe-ring sandals garnered  attention from all over the world for their distinct features and uniqueness when compared to  the various other designs displayed at the Event. Prada showcased this new open toe ring sandal  as an original work and creation, born out of the production process of Prada. This gave birth  to sizzling conversations about the originality of the Sandals as well as the need for recognition  of indigenous artisans and creations by urban brands taking inspiration from their works. The  luxury label did not provide any form of formal or informal recognition or appreciation to the  Kolhapuri design. This has caused anger and dissatisfaction among certain members of the  society in India who deeply feel connected to the tradition and historical significance of the  Kolhapuri Chappal. The situation that has arisen in Milan has opened up a pandora’s box of  questions regarding geographical indications, originality and craftsmanship, and the possibility  of Kolhapuri craftsmen owning the intellectual property rights to their age-old design. With the  footwear sector in India being one of the largest contributors to the Leather Industry of the  country with 115 million pairs being produced in a year, the role of Kolhapuri Chappals in 

India’s economy cannot be understated, which makes the impact of the Milan Summer Show  even greater to comprehend in the near future. 

India’s Stance on Geographical Indications: Defining Legacies 

Geographical Indications Act, 1999 defines GI as an indication in relation to agricultural,  natural, or manufactured goods which signifies its unique quality or characteristics originating  from a certain territory of a country or locality or region within that territory. It acts as a  distinct symbol or label allowing communities and territories to preserve and cherish their  cultural heritage and the products created by their own craftsmen and artisans. It is an identity  of a community. From the Muga Silk of Assam to the Kanchipuram Silk Sarees of Tamil Nadu,  the Coorgi Coffee of Karnataka to the Pattachitra of Odisha, India thrives on indigenous  cultural creations carving a legacy not just for the specific regions in those States, but for the  nation at a global stage. The aim of the GI Act of 1999 was to promote indigenous creations  and uplift Indian artisans to represent the country. The Act allows manufacturers and producers  to make something their own and prevent counterfeiting, ensure the authenticity and realness  of goods, and serve a larger community benefit through the identification and further  commercialization of the same. The All India Handicraft Board (AIHB) acts as a governing  body under the Ministry of Textiles which also recognizes Kolhapuri Chappals as a tradition  of India. Kolhapuri Chappals and other Indian handicrafts act not just as a basic Indian  product, but as a tool to gain state and national recognition, and improve the financial  sustainability of family and community driven artistry. Section 22 of the GI Act, 1999 also  mentions infringement by outsiders upon GI tagged products as a sign of unfair  competition and counterfeiting. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Tea Board of  India v. ITC Limited (2019) stated that every time when a person passes off his goods as those  of another he commits the act of such deceit. The Act under Section 22 also provides that an  alteration or change in the registered GI can only be done by the registered proprietor of the GI tag. Section 39 and 40 of the GI Act also penalize falsifying a GI tag or selling and  commercializing a falsely represented GI tag product. Kolhapuri Chappals are listed under the  

Register of Geographical Indications in India and their GI Tag of Kolhapuri Chappals belongs  to two Government entities which are Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar  Development Corporation (LIDCOM) in Maharashtra where the city of Kolhapur exists and  Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Limited (LIDKAR) in  Karnataka. Based on the same, the right to alter the GI tag or use products under the same is  only with LIDCOM and LIDKAR. 

Whether Prada is at Fault: A Deeper Issue of Non-Recognition 

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court heard a PIL raised in the current issue in Prof. Adv. Ganesh  Hingmire & Ors. v. Prada Group & Ors. (2025) where petitioners, 6 advocates in total, argued  for Prada not just to apologize to the Kolhapur community and artisans but also stop the  production of their Sandals as well as compensate the community for reputational and  economic damages. The Court while dismissing the petition on the grounds of inappropriate  remedy and petitioners not being the aggrieved parties, made some important statements. It can  be inferred from Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne’s words that Prada in general cannot be  held liable or made guilty of any infringement or copying, due to the simple fact that they did  not take the name of Kolhapuri Chappals or make a reference to it at any point of time from  the production to the display at Milan. The violation of a GI Tag under Section 22 of the Act  would have been valid if Prada would have referenced the Kolhapuri Chappals and publicized  taking inspiration from the same.  

Legal Ambiguities and The Way Forward For Community-Driven Craft: 

The Bombay High Court Judgment in the matter of Kolhapuri Chappals and Prada failed to  address the case on its merits, for the valid reason that the maintainability of a Public Interest  Litigation in such a case was highly questionable. Thus, it is the duty of the lawmakers as well  as the stakeholders of the law to delve into the proper procedure of fighting for their rights.  Section 31 of the Act allows aggrieved parties to approach the High Courts for appealing  against the decisions of the Registrar. Emphasis here shall be put on the words “aggrieved  parties” which in this case can only be the artisans of the Kolhapuri community itself.As per  Section 66 of the Act, the appropriate forum to approach for a violation or infringement of a  geographical indication tag and to enforce rights attached to it, is the District Court within that jurisdiction. Therefore, the community and the craftsmen have a constitutional right to  approach the District Courts in Maharashtra for availing the relief and remedies they absolutely  are entitled to. The filing of petitions motivated by anger and rage, in the wrong forums, with  the improper application of the law will only waste the time of the Court and not help the actual  stakeholders in any manner whatsoever. 

The law surrounding geographical indications is ambiguous and insufficient, not just in India  but across the world. The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)  Agreement, 1994 discusses the protection of GI but emphasizes majorly on wines and spirits. India, being a signatory to the World Trade Organization (WTO) since its commencement, is  also legally bound by this TRIPS Agreement. The Agreement of 1994 by nature fails to address  issues at the ground level and provides generic over-the-top guidelines which are difficult not  just to understand but also implement and apply at the grassroots. It is common sense that the  mere presence of a law will not help stakeholders. Taking into consideration, the fact that in  our country, there exist craftsmen who are unaware of the concept of GI tags, as well as artisans  who although aware, willingly keep their products away from government registrations such  as Madurkathi and Baluchuri Sarees in fear of production costs rising, and a more complex  procedure with the State involved. The basic understanding that needs to be ingrained in the  minds of our communities and its creative individuals, shall come only from awareness.  Awareness of their rights, of their duties and responsibilities as GI Tag holders, and of the  appropriate forums to raise questions at, as well as what questions those are. 

Conclusion: 

The lack of remedies available to the Kolhapuri artisans and the community at large in  Maharashtra and the open infringement of a traditional heritage product by a global brand like  Prada provokes an important question to answer. With the absolute ease to work around the  legal provisions of the GI Act, 1999 and international brands of importance like Prada  becoming the flagbearers of such infringement, what space does that leave for indigenous  creators, artisans, craftsmen, and manufacturers to grow or use their creativity and produce  cultural and ethnic goods. An argument can be made about the global brands taking these  designs from a village to the entire world, but that becomes useless if the same village and its craftsmen are not given any form of recognition or fame.

Intellectual property law is uncertain,  insufficient, and ambiguous on the subject of recognition of indigenous creations which allows  companies across the globe to manipulate the system and the law itself allows the rich to  become richer, not monetarily but in stature.

Reference

Prada Summer Menswear Show, Milan 2026, https://www.prada.com/eu/en/pradasphere/fashion shows/2026/ss-menswear.html

Dr. Yogesh Bokil & Ms. Manasi Patil, Transitioning Kolhapuri Chappal: An Exploration Of Vegan Leather  With Kolhapur Artisans, Vol. 9, IJNRD (2024) 

The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, §2(e). 

Anais Da Fonseca, Paintings, Painters, and Patrons: Institutional Interventions in the Lives of Cheriyal  Paintings, Vol. 81, No.1/2, AE, Pg. 125-148 (2022)

The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, §22. 

Tea Board of India v. ITC Limited, 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9122 

The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, §29. 

 The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, §39 & §40.

The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, §66. 

 Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement, 1994, §22, §23, and §24. 

 Akriti & Pinaki Ghosh, Challenges in the Utilization of GI Registration for Capitalizing GI Products, Vol 29,  JIPR, pp 428 (2024)

.