A Prada X Kolhapuri Chappal Story: Should GI Law borrow more from Trademark Law?

On 22nd June 2025, several pairs of Kolhapuri Chappals walked Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection in Milan — uncredited. What followed was criticism, backlash and accusations of appropriation. As a remedy, a team from Prada came down to Kolhapur, India, visited the artisans and the industry trade group, learnt about the craft, ensured meaningful exchange and hinted at a potential collaboration.

On 27th April 2026, Prada announced the launch of its limited-edition collection of sandals as part of the “PRADA Made in India x Inspired by Kolhapuri Chappals”, a training program for artisans across eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka regions and collaboration with local trade groups.

Limited Edition collection of sandals, PRADA Made in India x Inspired by Kolhapuri Chappals, retrieved from the Prada Official Website (2026).

This sequence of an initial appropriation, public backlash and then a polished collaboration forces us to ask — is this respectful collaboration or a disguised cultural extraction? The legal answer starts with understanding what a Geographical Indication (GI) is and why a GI is not the same thing as a trademark. And if the Kolhapuri Chappals enjoy GI protection, why was the community still vulnerable?

Under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, a GI is an indication that identifies goods as originating from a specific territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographic origin. The law recognises GI as a collective right or community right, meaning the right belongs to a group, association or other legal person representing the interests of producers. The Kolhapuri chappals are a prime example, whose value lies in the region-specific tanning techniques, hand-braiding and centuries old craft. A GI tag prevents others from misrepresenting their product as “Kolhapuri” when it lacks that origin and those methods.

A trademark, on the other hand, protects signs that distinguish the goods or services of one enterprise from another. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, recognises trademark as a private and exclusive right, where registering a mark gives the owner the right to prevent others from using an identical or deceptively similar sign for related goods. Prada is an example of a trademark, where consumers associate its logo and font exclusively with the goodwill, reputation and source-identifying function of the luxury fashion house.

Therefore, both GIs and trademarks are fundamentally different in their policy goals and this distinction creates a striking irony. The IP right protecting centuries of heritage has weaker enforceability than the IP right protecting a luxury brand.

THE TRADEMARK SOLUTION THAT ISN’T

Though changing the nature of GIs to that of trademarks and giving the communities a stronger commercial muscle seems tempting, it is both legally incoherent and practically risky. A GI is designed to preserve collective reputation and local control. A trademark’s exclusivity would allow a single entity to monopolise the use of a name or sign. Such conversion would result in the privatization of shared cultural assets, loss of community control and reduced benefits to the artisans whose labour created the reputation in the first place.

The law anticipates this distinction and provides for registration and remedies. But the enforcement architecture places most of its burden on producers and their associations to police the market, litigate and pursue remedy. This is where the weak link lies.

The Kolhapuri chappal is an example exposing how enforcement deficits neutralise statutory protections. Registered GIs can still be copied, diluted or commodified. Artisans often lack funds, access to legal enforcement or the commercial expertise to negotiate. Even when courts are approached, litigation is slow and jurisdictionally uncertain. Luxury houses operate differently. They have in-house legal teams, global marketing channels, the financial flexibility to offer training programs, PR-led collaborations and limited co-produced lines that placate the critics and shift most of the commercial benefit toward the brand. As is with Prada and Kolhapuri Chappals, such measures could either be genuinely developmental or a mere reputational upliftment for the firms allowing them to still retain creative and commercial control.

This is not as an isolated issue, but a recurring pattern in the governance of GIs. Similar problems have surfaced in India, where formal recognition has often failed to translate into effective protection in practice. Darjeeling Tea, for instance, became the first product in India to be registered as a GI in 2004, yet it continues to face unauthorized use of the Darjeeling name. Even though the tea carries immense reputation value (often called the “Champagne of Teas”), enforcement has remained weak and the persistence of counterfeiting shows how easily GI rights can be diluted.

Basmati Rice, granted GI status in 2010 for rice grown in specified regions of India, has long been entangled in disputes over territorial boundaries and competing national claims, particularly with Pakistan and more recently, Nepal’s objections to India’s attempts to secure recognition in the EU. These disputes show that GI protection is vulnerable to both domestic misuse and international contestation, especially where cultural identity, heritage and trade interests overlap.

The Prada situation is, hence, informing. On one hand, they engaged with local groups and invested in training, recognising the craft for what it is. On the other hand, collaboration came only after public criticism and the products are now being sold at luxury prices that the artisan community rarely captures. Which of these narratives is more accurate? The answer depends on governance. it depends on who controls the IP, who reaps benefits from sales, who sets quality and origin standards.

This raises the question of whether GI law should stop at policy misuse, whether GIs should be protected in a similar nature as that of trademarks, and what is the most effective way forward. The right route, I think, is institutional. If the law’s purpose is to protect artist communities, then the GI regime must be strengthened in a way the that is empowering to the craftsmen. Legally recognised producer organisations should be able to negotiate standardised agreements with global brands safeguarding attribution, quality control, pricing floors and revenue shares. Model collaboration contracts must be developed for co-creation projects that bind brands to transparency, artisan ownership of the craft, fair compensation and dispute resolution mechanisms supporting cross-border deals.

GIs and trademarks protect fundamentally different rights. Turning a GI into a private trademark risks depriving the very communities the law seeks to protect. Instead, the response should focus on stronger enforcement and contractual negotiations in favour of the artisans. The strengthening of GI lies not in turning heritage into brands, but in ensuring communities possess adequate legal and commercial power to negotiate.