Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Against Prada Over Kolhapuri Chappal: Cultural IP Debate Continues

Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Against Prada Over Kolhapuri Chappal: Cultural IP Debate Continues

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that sought action against global fashion house Prada for allegedly using a design deceptively similar to Maharashtra’s traditional Kolhapuri Chappal. The decision has significant implications for the fashion industry, artisans, and debates around protecting traditional knowledge and cultural heritage.

Factual Background

The PIL, filed by five advocates, alleged that Prada’s toe ring sandals presented at its Milan fashion show resembled the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal. The petitioners claimed this amounted to cultural misappropriation and violated the rights of artisan communities historically associated with the Kolhapuri Chappal, which enjoys Geographical Indication (GI) status recognizing its cultural significance.

Contentions of the Parties

The petitioners argued that Prada’s design failed to acknowledge the Indian origin of the footwear and did not credit the artisan communities, undermining their livelihoods and cultural identity. They claimed this violated the right to life under Article 21 and the right to conserve distinct culture under Article 29(1) of the Constitution. They also contended that Prada’s use contravened Section 22 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Procedural Background

A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne heard the PIL and dismissed it after hearing both sides. The detailed judgment is awaited and may clarify the Court’s legal reasoning for rejecting the plea.

Reasoning & Analysis

The dismissal highlights the complexities around protecting traditional designs under existing intellectual property frameworks. The detailed order will clarify the Court’s view on whether a foreign brand’s use of a culturally significant design qualifies as GI infringement or cultural misappropriation under current Indian law.

Implications

The outcome is a setback for the petitioners who sought to protect the rights of Kolhapuri Chappal artisans. However, it renews discussions about whether India needs clearer, stronger protections for traditional knowledge and cultural heritage. The decision may shape how global fashion brands handle cultural inspiration and attribution.

Final Outcome

The PIL was dismissed, and the detailed reasoning will provide further insight into how courts balance traditional design protection with global fashion trends.