ABSTRACT
Intellectual property law with trademark and geographical indication (GI) as the main focus was initially conceived as tools that would secure and protect innovation in commercial markets that are formalized. However, the moment such laws are intertwined with the innovation of traditional fashion concepts; the use of handwoven textiles, patterns of embroidery, techniques of art that originate from the collective knowledge and intergenerational transmission, it appears that the framework has basic flaws. This article explores the doctrinal shortcomings of trademark and GI protection for traditional fashion through examining the Prada-Kolhapuri chappal scandal (2025) which involved the loft-brand’s taking of the old method of making sandals to anger the people although it was said that the GIs were registered for them and hence, protected.
The paper points out that while GIs can theoretically be a more effective means of protection as compared to trademarks, they in reality work within certain structural limitations that make them incapable of protecting the cultural heritage. Some of those limits are territorial boundedness (the protection is limited to the Indian jurisdiction), the protection of product names rather than the cultural heritage pieces, the doctrine of evocation (design use without specific geographic reference), and the lack of remedies for cultural appropriation where commercial deception is absent. Furthermore, GI law assumes that there is a formal institution responsible for the ownership and that there are market enforcement mechanisms that are most likely not accessible to marginalized artisan communities.
Keyword: Kolhapuri Chappals, GI Protection Limitations, Traditional Knowledge Appropriation, IP Frameworks and Artisan Rights
INTRODUCTION
Trademark fundamentally is a sign of identification. It basically differentiates the goods of one seller from those of another, thus indicating both the source and the quality to the consumers. However, this practical definition covers up the fact that trademarks function in the same way as the signs of semiotics and the arenas where cultural authenticity faces commercial exploitation. The legal system regulating trademarks has been developed in the industrial environments of the 19th century and is based on the following assumptions: that innovation is a single person’s merit, that one can create a fixed graphical representation of the creation, and that if the commercial value is high it deserves protection.Those assumptions which have been normalized and globalized through international conventions are essentially based on Western views of property and ownership.
The deficiency of this scheme becomes visible when it is used to evaluate creative works that are outside the framework of this system. For example, traditional fashion innovations such as handwoven textiles, embroidery patterns, and dyeing techniques handed down from one generation to another are collective innovations rather than the creative works of one author. Moreover, they have a spiritual and communal significance besides their commercial valuation and are thus being taken care of by communities rather than corporations. On the other hand, trademark laws which are made for individual commercial interests in competitive markets, find it hard to adjust to the creative traditions that originate from shared cultural frameworks.[1]
Such a discrepancy gave rise to the alternative system of Geographical Indications. Unlike trademarks which protect the distinctive signs themselves, GIs are related to the places that produce the goods that the signs stand for. This rationale seems reasonable for the traditional handcrafts: if a textile is valuable because of the local techniques and heritage, then why not protect it by a GI? Protection through GI theoretically might give what trademark law lacks acknowledging the knowledge of the community and keeping the cultural aspect intact without the necessity of individual ownership.
India saw and realized this as well. The country has more than 400 products[2] registered under the Geographical Indications of GoodsAct[3] such as Banarasi silk, Mysore silk, and Kanchipuram silk. In 2018, Kolhapuri chappals handmade leather sandals from Maharashtra and Karnataka was granted the status of GI under registration No. 169[4].As the GI was formulated to provide the artisan with the necessary safeguards against exploitation and to give communities the legal means to fight against takeover, it is now registered in the names of LIDCOM and LIDKAR, with more than 900 authorized producers. In recent times, a new issue has emerged regarding Kolhapuri chappals, and it carries significant cultural weight. Handcrafted using vegetable-tanned leather and traditional techniques, they are distinguished by decorative woven patterns and characteristic toe-loop construction. Traditional pattern namesKapsi, Kanwalis, Benta, Nachemayurireflect centuries of history, each design a cultural artifact. Artisans in Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, and Solapur had produced these chappals for generations, selling them locally for ₹100-500 per pairmodest prices reflecting manual skill and embedded cultural knowledge.
On June 22, 2025, Prada presented its Spring/Summer 2026 collection at Milan Fashion Week.[5] One of the highlights was the flat leather sandals with T-straps, braided patterns, and leather toe rings that were a perfect replica of Kolhapuri chappals. However, the price tag was around ₹1.2 lakh per pair, and the forsaken acknowledgment of their Indian roots or the long history of the tradition they were bringing back was quite apparent. These sandals were simply sold as flat leather footwear. However, for anyone familiar with Indian traditional footwear, the link was quite obvious. The reaction was instantaneous. Artisans, advocates, and officials of the government condemned the decision as cultural appropriation. Priyank Kharge, a minister from Karnataka, stressed the difference of magnitude: While Kolhapuri artisans make ₹300-500 per pair, Prada sells the exact same design for ₹1.2 lakh, a 200 times increase. On July 3, 2025, a PIL was submitted in the Bombay High Court requesting damages and collaboration under court supervision. However, the issue of identifying the fundamental problem raised its head: Prada did not use the phrase “Kolhapuri chappal.” According to GI law, violation occurs only when someone falsely claims the geographical location in Section 22 of the GI Act that is the infringing entity is the name, not the design. In fact, by just copying the design and not associating it with the place of origin, Prada is in compliance with the law.[6]
This weakens the protection of the GI which confers rights on product names, not on the different expressions, the techniques, or the design vocabularies of a culture, which can be taken over by the design globally without any legal consequence.Moreover, GI protection is limited to the Indian borders only. Prada has designed and marketed internationally, therefore, completely outside the Indian legal jurisdiction. There is no worldwide GI system similar to that of trademark. Thirdly, GI law comes with no solution to the problem of cultural appropriation when there is no commercial deception no right to be compensated, no obligation to give credit, no acknowledgement of the moral rights. After a long time of insistence, Prada admitted that the sandals were “inspired by traditional Indian footwear.” This did not change anything legally. The law does not protect against the use of cultural elements by another brand when the product is marketed under its name.
The Prada-Kolhapuri episode reveals the fundamental problem in the existing intellectual property (IP) systems that are supposed to protect traditional fashion. These innovations share the same cultural frameworks are collectively managed, are spiritually significant, and are resistant to the fixity and individual ownership that trademark and GI systems assume. The design can be taken, inspired, and made commercial at levels and prices that are completely detached from the communities that developed and sustained the tradition. Traditional artisans, on the other hand, continue to be economically marginalized and legally vulnerable even after obtaining GI registration which is supposedly meant for their protection.
To bridge this disconnect, it is necessary to acknowledge that certain forms of creativity cannot be converted into commodities, that communities have moral rights over their heritage, and that justice for traditional artisans requires provisions other than market-based intellectual property laws.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Trade Marks Act[7]
The Trade Marks Act is the main source of statutory protection of brand identity and other distinguishing signs. It establishes a registration-based system in which the owners of the marks have the exclusive right to use their marks in relation to the goods and services for which they are registered. Section 9 of the Act specifies the absolute grounds on which a trademark application may be refused. Such grounds include a trademark that lacks distinctive character, is descriptive, consists of words commonly used in trade, is against public policy, or is offensive in nature. The Act aims to secure the identity of commercial brands, primarily by preventing consumer confusion and safeguarding the goodwill associated with registered marks. Nevertheless, the Act is riddled with significant loopholes when it comes to the protection of culturally significant designs against unauthorised use by private corporations, as it does not have an explicit provision which prohibits the registration of trademarks based on traditional knowledge, indigenous cultural expressions, or culturally significant designs without the consent of the community. The absence of such a provision in the legislation is quite an issue in India, where the communities have, in the past, been the collective custodians of traditional designs which are older than the modern trademark system, but the Act does not offer any mechanism for the recognition and protection of these already existing community claims[8].
The current provisions of the Act does not prevent private corporations from using traditional designs. A multinational fashion brand can, for example, file a traditional design pattern as its three-dimensional trademark, gain the sole rights to that design over the specified classes, and thus be able to stop the rivals from using the substantially similar marks. In contrast, the indigenous artisan communities who have been the cultural bearers for hundreds of years and are the creators of the design do not have any statutory recognition or standing. Although Section 47 provides for collective trademark registration which, in theory, can be used by artisan associations and community groups, the practical hurdles for this are quite high: the beneficiary communities have to deal with complicated procedural requirements, they have to set up a formal organisational structure recognized by Indian law, they have to show that they have the capacity to enforce without State-sponsored mechanisms, and they have to acquire the financial resources for the prosecution and the maintenance of the trademark – all these are the obstacles which artisan communities living below the poverty line are not able to overcome[9].Moreover, collective marks often necessitate elaborate governance structures and impeccable quality control measures which artisan communities that are culturally diverse and geographically spread are usually incapable of establishing. Thus, they do not have any protection in foreign markets where private corporations take traditional designs and use them for commercial purposes.
The difficulties of trademark law in resolving the problem of cultural misappropriation can be traced to the statute which is fundamentally aimed at stopping commercial confusion rather than safeguarding cultural identity or the interests of the community. The law of trademark functions on the basis of a marketplace model: the owner’s investment in brand development is protected and the competitors who might want to benefit from the already established goodwill are prevented. Without creating any confusion between trademarks, cultural misappropriation could be happening very often. For example, Kolhapuri chappal is a style of shoe made in India and when Prada copied and did not mention the source of the original, no one would think that the chappal is made by Prada. However, according to trademark law, the incident is not problematic since there is no confusion. The law has no provision for cultural integrity, recognition of cultural origin, or cultural symbolism of the traditional designs unless there is a commercial confusion analysis. Since there is no compulsory cultural attribution provision, even if a private actor has registered a traditional design as his trademark, there is no legal requirement to recognize cultural origin, community contribution, or historical significance. The rights of a trademark are only for the owner of the registered trademark, hence a situation is created where cultural appropriation may be lawful yet origin communities may suffer economically without getting the proper share.
B. Geographical Indications
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act[10], outlines the main statutory framework of India for the protection of traditional products that are not only the intimate cultural practices but are also vary greatly from region to region. Section 2(e) defines a geographical indication as a sign used to distinguish the goods to be from a certain area, where their quality, reputation, or features are primarily derived from that geographical origin. The main purpose of the Act is to stop the deceptive use of geographical names and preserve the integrity and good name of the region-specific products whose worth is based on traditional knowledge and place-based production methods. Moreover, the GI system allows the local producers’ groups and community associations of the geographical area to file an application for collective registration. After registration, only authorised users who adhere to the set quality standards and production specifications can use the GI. The registered proprietor obtains the right to stop others from using the protected indication in any way that gives a false impression of the goods originating from a place other than their real source.
Kolhapuri chappals are a good example of a registered GI. They were registered in 2019 under Application No. 169. LIDCOM and LIDKAR, representing artisan communities from eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka, are the proprietors. This registration covers more than 900 authorised users, mostly from the Dalit and Charmakar communities, whose traditions of making footwear have been going for several centuries. The GI specification points out the unique features of the T strap design, open toe structure, braided leather work, and hand-stitched construction as the indicators of authentic Kolhapuri chappals. The registration, in essence, acknowledges that these goods are not just common sandals, but are the artistic skills of the region, the cultural heritage, and the geographically rooted knowledge systems.
The first main source of the rights of GI holders is mainly in the provisions of the Sections 22-27 of the Act. In particular, Section 22 explains that an infringement consists of the use of a protected indication in a confounding way to the public in terms of the geographical origin of the goods. Basically, the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 provide for the legal recourses such as injunctions and damages to be used against the illegal activities. But, the extent of the protection is still very much confined to the misuse of the indication or the name itself. The Act does not prohibit the design, the shape, or the visual aspects of the product. Even though Sections 12-16 provide for user-authorised registration, the system is silent on any statutory provisions for sharing of benefits or giving of compensations when traditional patterns are commercially exploited by the third parties. In addition, GI registration is only renewable for a period of ten years each time, which is quite different from the international talks that are inclined towards indefinite protection of traditional cultural expressions.[11]
C. International Legal Framework
The international legal framework for the three overlapping but separate regimes: the TRIPS Agreement, WIPO’s progressing work on Traditional Cultural Expressions, and fragmented national enforcement systems, protecting traditional designs is based on These systems, when combined, show that there is a big gap between the formal recognition of cultural products and the actual protection against illegal use of these products across the border, something that can be seen in the Prada Kolhapuri case.
TRIPS Agreement[12]
The obligations of India under the TRIPS Agreement define the minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property, and, at the same time, indirectly limit the community-centered models, which are stronger and more beneficial for the community. Articles 22 to 24 are concerned with geographical indications. According to Article 22, member countries are required to take measures to prevent GI usage which misleads the public in terms of the geographical origin, and Article 23 gives more protection only to wines and spirits. These articles put forward the minimum level of protection but do not require further safeguards to be put in place for traditional designs or cultural expressions. While TRIPS allows members to have stricter protection, India has not gone beyond basic name-based protection in her GI regime.
Besides, TRIPS Article 27.3(b) permits the exclusion of plants and animals from patentability, but it does not offer any protection against unauthorized individuals registering traditional designs as trademarks or industrial designs. Therefore, the traditional forms are still open to being taken without the permission of the community by the use of design and trademark. Moreover, TRIPS do not have any provision for sharing of benefits, giving credit to culture, or obtaining a consent of the community. IP rights are seen as individual, commercial, and tradeable rights whereas the tribal cultural interests are treated as one of the collective cultural spheres. In addition, WTO dispute settlement can only be initiated by member states and not communities, and the possibility of trade disputes acts as a deterrent to developing countries, like India, shielding them from implementing any protective measures that could be considered as obstructing foreign commercial interests.
WIPO and Traditional Cultural Expressions[13]
One of the responses to these discrepancies was the WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee negotiating a sui generis framework for Traditional Cultural Expressions. The new model moves away from giving protection only to products towards recognizing the rights of the communities. The framework, as it stands, would see cultural-heritage communities as the holders of collective and inalienable rights to prohibit unauthorised reproduction, distortion, and commercial exploitation of their cultural expressions. On the other hand, they would get the right to be identified as the source, be protected against false association, and receive fair shares of the profits.
Essentially, the rights would be there forever, for as long as the expression continues to be a part of a living tradition. This is quite different from the limited and renewable protection under India’s GI law. The WIPO model also disallows the notion that traditional designs should be considered as part of the public domain simply because they have been disclosed historically, thus solving the major problem of design law. Nevertheless, these negotiations are still at the stage and non-binding. India has not yet domestically harmonized law with these principles leaving artisan communities locally without rights that can be enforced while international consensus is far away.
The Prada-Kolhapuri chappal incident:
The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy[14] exposes a systemic blind spot across all three legal frameworks because each regime protects a specific legal interest that Prada effectively circumvented.
- Trademark law failed because its trigger is consumer confusion regarding brand origin; since Prada marketed the sandals as its own luxury product without using the name “Kolhapuri” or misleading consumers into believing they were buying authentic Indian artifacts, there was no “confusion” to remedy, leaving the design itself the core cultural asset entirely exposed to replication.
- Simultaneously, the GI framework proved impotent because it protects the geographical designation rather than the product’s form; by replicating the T-strap structure and braided aesthetics while stripping away the protected “Kolhapuri” label, Prada technically complied with the letter of the GI Act, which penalizes misleading geographical claims but offers no recourse for “design-level” appropriation where the origin is simply erased rather than falsified.
- Lastly, the international framework (TRIPS) failed to bridge this gap because it lacks a mechanism for cross-border enforcement of traditional designs that aren’t patented or trademarked; without a harmonized treaty like the proposed WIPO TCE framework to recognize community ownership of designs in the public domain, Indian GI rights have no extraterritorial force to stop an Italian company from manufacturing lookalikes in a third country and selling them globally.
Ultimately, the situation remains unrecognized because the law treats the sandal as a commercial commodity defined by its brand name, whereas the misappropriation lies in the uncompensated extraction of its cultural form a violation for which no current statute provides a cause of action[15].
CURRENT ISSUE AT HAND
The Prada–Kolhapuri dispute is not just a case where intellectual property rights were mishandled. It signals the imbalance of cultural power, wherein legal systems give more preference to corporate stories than to the histories of the communities and transform traditional designs into mere sources of inspiration instead of recognizing them as the identities of the culture that is still alive[16]. Even though the Kolhapuri chappals were awarded geographical indication protection in India in 2019, this acknowledgment still means very little in the global luxury markets. Prada has been able to duplicate the design, integrate it into the elite fashion circuits, and sell it at prices over Rs. 15,000 when the original artisans are getting only a small fraction of that amount. This change did not require any claim of ownership, any falsification of origin, or any violation of law. Basically, it was done through brand prestige, global distribution, and cultural capital, thus exposing the operation of luxury branding beyond the effective scope of the existing legal protections.
Such a discrepancy shows that legal recognition is not equal to market power. The artisan communities do not have the capital, networks, and brand visibility that are necessary to be able to defend or monetize their cultural products at a global level, whereas multinational corporations have exactly these tools. Present IP laws are disadvantaging the parties involved in this dispute. Trademark and design laws are instruments that can be used by those who have the ability to register, litigate, and maintain a commercial presence i.e. companies, whereas traditional designs can either be removed as public domain or can be protected only in terms of naming under GI law[17]. In cases of design appropriation where there is no reference to geographical origin, GI protection is almost completely without authority.
The controversy also serves as a reminder that laws have their limitations when it comes to protecting alive culture from within. Intellectual property law is fundamentally based on the ideas of ownership, fixation, and exclusiveness. However, culture is not something that belongs to any one group since it is the result of interaction between people and is deeply rooted in social practices. For instance, kolhapuri chappals are not merely some parts of the world which have been registered, they are in fact the crafts which over the years have been influenced, through trial, social functions, and changes, by the people’s way of life. Besides that, registration-based protection has difficulties since it regards culture as a marketable product that has been fixed rather than a process which is constantly changing.
Such a movement from shielding to recognition involves the very first step of understanding that damage is caused not only by loss of money but also by being invisible. The Prada case was one of the causes of significant injustice because it led to the disappearance of the artisan communities from the global stories of value creation. In places that are still very far from having legal solutions, cultural damage is always there when the origin, authorship, and meaning are taken away. The very concept of recognition as reparative justice implies among other things, compulsory attribution, the rights of community in storytelling, and the acknowledgment of collective authorship in the design lineage[18].
The last point about cultural extraction also entails a complete overhaul of the idea of benefit sharing which should be beyond just royalties. Some good ethical collaboration models may be co-branding, shared authorship, consent, and participatory design, all of which provide alternatives to the act of one-sided appropriation. There are also some soft law mechanisms like industry codes, fashion council standards, and reputation-based accountability which can be used as supplements to the legally weak frameworks. However, ethical norms should be put in practice together with more strengthened statutory reforms so as to make sure that cultural appropriation ceases to be a source of profit merely because it is legally allowed.
CONCLUSION
The Prada-Kolhapuri controversy crystallises a paradox at the heart of contemporary intellectual property law: India can formally recognise traditional designs as Geographical Indications, award them statutory protection, and celebrate them as repositories of cultural heritage, yet remain fundamentally incapable of preventing their profitable appropriation by multinational corporations operating in global markets where Indian law possesses no force. This failure is not accidental; it reflects structural limitations embedded across India’s statutory framework and international IP governance that privilege corporate interests over community rights, treat culture as a commodity rather than a repository of identity, and assume that legal protection, when available, can substitute for cultural recognition and equitable benefit-sharing. The incident serves as a “wake-up call” not merely to reform trademark law or strengthen GI provisions, but to undertake a comprehensive reconceptualisation of how IP systems should engage with cultural heritage and traditional knowledge in postcolonial contexts where wealth extraction, cultural erasure, and community invisibility remain the predominant outcomes of cross-border appropriation[19].
The legal frameworks examinedthe Trade Marks Act 1999, the GI Act 1999, and India’s adherence to TRIPSwere designed in industrial contexts and for commercial purposes fundamentally misaligned with protecting living cultural traditions. Trademark law protects proprietor goodwill and prevents confusion; it cannot prevent a corporation from registering a traditional design configuration as its own trademark or replicating it freely without nomenclatural misuse. The GI Act protects geographical designations and prevents misleading origin claims; it cannot address design-level appropriation where the “Kolhapuri” name is simply omitted, reducing the statute’s reach to a narrow nomenclatural protection inadequate in contemporary fashion markets where visual aestheticsnot geographic origin labelsdrive consumer preference. The Designs Act[20] excludes public domain creations, rendering traditional designs unprotectable regardless of their cultural significance or contemporary commercial value. Collectively, these regimes create a legal architecture where cultural appropriation remains simultaneously profitable and legal, transforming the gap between statutory recognition and global commercial reality into a canyon that existing mechanisms cannot bridge. TRIPS compounds this failure by establishing only minimum standards, permitting wealthy trading partners to challenge stronger protections, and providing no framework for mandatory benefit-sharing, cultural attribution, or community consentinstead treating IP as unidirectional property rights flowing from registered proprietors to users without recognition of underlying cultural contributions.
Together, these regimes form a legal framework where cultural appropriation is still profitable and legal, thus, the gap between statutory recognition and global commercial reality has become so vast that existing mechanisms cannot bridge it. TRIPS[21] adds to this failure by only setting minimum standards, allowing rich trading partners to challenge more robust protections, and not offering a system for mandatory benefit-sharing, cultural attribution, or community consent. Instead, it considers IP as one-directional property rights that flow from registered proprietors to users, without taking into account the cultural contributions that are the basis.
The problem, however, is not just that statutes are lacking, but that there is a fundamental mismatch between the assumptions of law and the nature of living culture. Intellectual property is implemented through registration, fixation, exclusivity, and temporal limitation – it operates on the assumption that cultural identity can be “captured” in unchangeable specifications, owned by designated proprietors, and protected for a limited period of time. Kolhapuri chappals, for instance, which have been molded for centuries by artisans handed down from generation to generation, are a living craft whose aesthetic and functional aspects are constantly changing due to community innovation, experimentation, and cultural practice.
IP based on registration cannot safeguard such fluidity as it requires unchangeable definitions; the moment the GI is characterized by certain design features, any subsequent development would not be covered by the protection and any reproduction that changes specific technical details would be able to avoid the infringement. This incompatibility brings up the fundamental question of whether IP law with its property-based logic is capable of protecting cultural identity adequately or whether it just turns living traditions into marketable commodities without giving the communities the dynamic relationships with their own heritage[22].
Addressing this structural failure, figuring out a solution that goes beyond legal protection, would involve cultural recognition, ethical responsibility, and deeply rethought benefit-sharing mechanisms based on dignity and consent. As reparative justice, recognition implies the need for statutory mandates that provide for cultural attribution[23], community control over the way heritage is presented in global markets, and formal recognition of community authorship in design lineage. Benefit-sharing should not only be about royalties but also include co-branding partnerships, profit-sharing mechanisms, participatory design processes, and community storytelling rightsthus changing the relationships from being one-way extraction to real collaboration where artisans become recognized stakeholders and co-creators. Soft law instruments such as corporate ethical codes, fashion industry standards, and reputation-driven accountability through consumer awareness and media scrutiny may create normative expectations that limit corporate behavior in places where legal enforcement is weak; however, these work only when continuous pressure from civil society, media, and consumers is there, thus making appropriation financially unattractive due to the associated costs.
In the end, the Prada-Kolhapuri case is a clear example that symbolic legal recognitionregistering a GI, granting statutory protection, celebrating cultural authenticity in policy documentsprovides empty justice if it is not accompanied by: rights of attribution that can be enforced; international enforcement mechanisms; real benefit-sharing guarantees; and institutional ways enabling the community to participate in value creation.
India’s way forward involves statutory reform based on WIPO’s developing Traditional Cultural Expression frameworks, which recognize community rights as collective, non-transferable, permanent, and enforceable both at the national and international level. Besides, it calls for bilateral IP agreements with main trading partners setting up reciprocal customs authority coordination for GI enforcement and online platform accountability. It also requires the rethinking of cultural heritage as something that cannot be separated from community identity, dignity, and livelihood securitythus moving away from the perspective of IP as a market regulation tool and towards the view of it as a means of reparative justice and cultural sovereignty[24].
[1] JOTWELL (Journal of Things We Like Lots), Innovating Trademark Theory, available at https://ip.jotwell.com/innovating-trademark-theory/ (accessed 07 December 2025).
[2]Dikshu C. Kukreja et al., Promotion of Geographical Indications (GIs) in India, India Brand Equity Foun. (Oct. 17, 2023), https://www.ibef.org/blogs/promotion-of-geographical-indications-gis-in-india.
[3] Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
[4] Geographical Indication (GI) Tags of Maharashtra, The IP Press (May 12, 2022), https://www.theippress.com/2022/05/12/geographical-indication-gi-tags-of-maharashtra/.
[5] Vaibhav Vutts & Vaibavi S.G., Inspiration v. Infringement: Prada’s Kolhapuri Sandals and Scope of GI Protection in India, Asian Patent Attorneys Ass’n (Oct. 2025), https://apaaonline.org/article/inspiration-v-infringement-pradas-kolhapuri-sandals-and-scope-of-gi-protection-in-india/.
[6]Penelope MacRae, Prada accused of cashing in on Indian culture with Kolhapuri-inspired sandals, The Guardian (June 30, 2025), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/30/prada-accused-of-cashing-in-on-indian-culture-with-kolhapuri-inspired-sandals.
[7] The Trade Marks Act,1999
[8] IP & Legal Filings, Trademarks and Indigenous Knowledge: Protecting Tribal and Folk Names, available at https://www.ipandlegalfilings.com/trademarks-and-indigenous-knowledge-protecting-tribal-and-folk-names/ (accessed 11 December 2025).
[9] Kautilya Society for Criminal Law, Safeguarding India’s Traditional Cultural Expressions from Misappropriation Through Intellectual Property Rights, available at https://kautilyasocrmlnlu.com/2022/12/10/safeguarding-indias-traditional-cultural-expressions-from-misappropriation-through-intellectual-property-rights/ (accessed 02 December 2025).
[10] Supra Note 2 at pg. 2
[11] Press Information Bureau, Government of India, Government Initiatives for Promotion of Geographical Indications, available at https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2151228®=3&lang=2 (accessed 10 December 2025).
[12]World Trade Organization, Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C.
[13]World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions, available at https://www.wipo.int/en/web/traditional-knowledge/traditional-cultural-expressions (accessed 13 December 2025).
[14] Drishti IAS, Kolhapuri Chappals, available at https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/kolhapuri-chappals-1 (accessed 05 December 2025).
[15] Khurana & Khurana Advocates and IP Attorneys, Of Couture and Tradition: The Prada Kolhapuri Chappal Controversy and the IPR Dilemma, available at https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/of-couture-and-tradition-the-prada-kolhapuri-chappal-controversy-and-the-ipr-dilemma (accessed 08 December 2025).
[16] Dots & Dots, Navigating the Ethical Tapestry of Cultural Appropriation, available at https://www.dotsod.in/navigating-the-ethical-tapestry-of-cultural-appropriation/ (accessed 04 December 2025).
[17]Civil Law Journal, Geographical indication and handicrafts: A critique, available at https://www.civillawjournal.com/article/37/2-2-8-463.pdf (accessed 09 December 2025).
[18] Sustainability Directory, What Are the Ethics of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion?, available at https://fashion.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-ethics-of-cultural-appropriation-in-fashion/ (accessed 06 December 2025).
[19]SpicyIP, The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation and More, available at https://spicyip.com/2025/07/the-devil-wears-kolhapuri-or-prada-understanding-gi-law-cultural-appropriation-more.html (accessed 13 December 2025).
[20]The Designs Act,2000.
[21]World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Knowledge: The Challenges Facing International Lawmakers, WIPO Magazine, available at https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo-magazine/articles/traditional-knowledge-the-challenges-facing-international-lawmakers-39875 (accessed 10 December 2025).
[22]World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Knowledge, available at https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/tk/ (accessed 08 December 2025).
[23]World Intellectual Property Organization, Traditional Cultural Expressions (Folklore), available at https://www.wipo.int/tk/en/folklore/ (accessed 13 December 2025).
[24] Lukmaan IAS Blog, Geographical Indications as Shields of Heritage: Lessons from the Prada–Kolhapuri Episode, available at https://blog.lukmaanias.com/2025/07/02/geographical-indications-as-shields-of-heritage-lessons-from-the-prada-kolhapuri-episode/ (accessed 14 December 2025).
