On June 25, during its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear show in Milan, Italian luxury fashion house Prada debuted shoes inspired by India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals, which elicited outrage over cultural appropriation. The brand was accused of appropriating traditional Indian craftsmanship without due credit or acknowledgement of its cultural and geographic origins. A major ethical and legal controversy has arisen between the globally renowned luxury fashion house Prada and the traditional, handmade leather footwear known as Kolhapuri chappals, which have deep cultural roots in India.
Traditional Kolhapuri chappal manufacturers are preparing to file a lawsuit against Prada, asserting that the company’s latest shoe series has borrowed the unique design elements of Kolhapuri chappals without authorisation or credit. This scandal has raised serious concerns about intellectual property rights, cultural appropriation, and, above all, the violation of protection ensured by India’s Geographical Indication (GI) system. Famous for its craft artistry, which consists of fine hand-stitching and vegetable-dyed leather, Kolhapuri chappals are indigenous to three districts in Karnataka and Maharashtra: Kolhapur, Sangli, and Belgaum. The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999, a legislative mechanism that is used to protect goods with specific characteristics or reputations due to origin, granted this unique pair of shoes GI status in 2019. The GI tag provides legal protection from unauthorised commercial use as well as legally validating the regional and cultural uniqueness of such goods. Prada’s launch of a new line of open-toe leather sandals that look like traditional Kolhapuri chappals in terms of soles, toe knots, and leather construction ignited the controversy.
Indian craftsmen and cooperatives argue that Prada could have infringed the GI protection for Kolhapuri chappals by not recognising the traditional origin of this style. They view this practice as commercial and cultural exploitation when the artistic work of poor craftspeople is utilised for global gain without equitable benefit-sharing, and not merely as an aesthetic imitation. Legally, this suit is soundly based in India’s GI Act, specifically Section 21, which bars unauthorised persons from using a registered GI in any manner that may cause customers to be misled or that will constitute unfair competition. In addition, Section 22 enumerates other forms of GI infringement, including blatant abuse, false representations of origin, and actions that discredit or debase the GI’s already acquired reputation. In addition, GI protection is expected to be enforceable worldwide under Articles 22 to 24 due to the fact that both India and Italy are signatories to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights( TRIPS) under the WTO, thus giving affected artisans potential avenues for seeking legal remedies across borders.
By GI tagging, India has for long encouraged the conservation of its native cultural forms and traditional knowledge practices. There is a pressing requirement for robust international mechanisms able to effectively counter GI protections in cross-border cases. The issue raises the broader ethical debate of cultural appropriation versus appreciation, as well as its legality. While fashion often takes inspiration from across the globe, there is a deep imbalance in cross-cultural exchange seen in not acknowledging, appreciating, and compensating traditional cultures for their effort. Global brands perpetuate systems of exploitation and erasure when they commodify local work without contributing to the societies of origin.
Hence, ethical grounds necessitate that businesses like Prada be accountable, not only through legal compliance but also through promoting transparency, equitable trade, and true collaboration with communities of artisans. Finally, the legal action the Kolhapuri chappal manufacturers are contemplating is something greater than a conflict regarding ownership of the design; it is a declaration in favour of the preservation of traditional knowledge systems, the exercise of intellectual sovereignty, and the protection of cultural heritage. India can well set a precedent for safeguarding its cultural heritage due to the strict enforcement of the GI law and support from global legal systems such as TRIPS. It is important that history not only be preserved but also shared equitably and with morals as globalisation and tradition meet increasingly.
(The writer is a researcher at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, and a freelance journalist. Views are personal)