The GI Gap in the Kolhapuri-Prada Moment

Image Credits: Vogue

When Prada’s Spring 2026 Menswear Collection hit the runway in Milan, a pair of simple, elegant leather sandals quietly slipped into the spotlight, only to spark an unexpected debate thousands of miles away. For Indian viewers familiar with indigenous crafts, the sandals’ design rang a bell. The wide leather straps, the toe loop, the open structure, it all echoed the undeniable silhouette of the Kolhapuri chappal, a product of centuries-old craftsmanship from Maharashtra. While the international press praised the minimalism of the footwear, in India, it triggered a wave of unease and introspection, particularly within legal and cultural circles. At the heart of this discourse was the question: What is the real strength of Geographical Indication protection, and is it robust enough to defend traditional crafts in a global fashion economy?

Kolhapuri chappals were granted GI status in 2019 (GI Journal No. 109, Application No. 169). This recognition was intended to secure the craft’s cultural identity, promote economic sustainability for artisans, and prevent misuse of the name and its heritage. But what the Prada incident underscored was the narrow scope of what GIs actually protect and more importantly, what they leave exposed. While the GI tag safeguards the use of the term "Kolhapuri" for chappals made in the designated regions using traditional methods, it does not prevent external parties from drawing inspiration from the product’s design language, as long as they don’t use the protected name.

This is exactly what happened with Prada. The fashion house never referred to their product as a Kolhapuri chappal. There was no claim of cultural linkage, no marketing message tying the sandals to India. From a strictly legal point of view, no violation occurred. Yet from a cultural and ethical standpoint, the resemblance was undeniable and unacknowledged. This loophole leaves the door wide open for soft appropriation such as cultural mimicry without legal consequences. This also left us with a lingering question: Was the GI tag truly doing what it was meant to do? Protect the identity and economic interests of traditional artisans in a global marketplace?

The answer, it seems, is no. The Prada episode revealed that GI protection, as it currently stands, is geographically limited and too narrowly defined to offer meaningful deterrence on an international scale. Without reciprocal arrangements between countries or formal registration of Indian GIs in foreign jurisdictions, enforcement abroad is nearly impossible. Moreover, because GIs primarily protect names, the reputation and authenticity of products that are linked to a specific geographical region and not designs, there is no legal shield against stylistic borrowing unless the design itself is separately registered or copyrighted which rarely happens with traditional, community-owned crafts.

A GI tag is designed to prevent unauthorized use of a registered name. In theory, it should offer some form of deterrence against misuse. But here's the catch, GI protection applies largely within the registering country. So, unless Kolhapuri chappals are registered as a GI in Italy or across the EU, Prada (or any brand) is legally unbound to acknowledge or license the design. Hence, GI protection must become internationally mobile. If Indian GIs like Kolhapuri chappals are to be respected beyond national borders, India must invest in securing GI recognition abroad, especially in major fashion and consumer markets. This is not just a legal necessity, it is a cultural responsibility.

This moment invites the global fashion industry to move beyond inspiration and toward inclusive innovation where cultural roots are acknowledged, artisan voices are uplifted, and creativity becomes a truly shared space. Fashion is cyclical, yes. But when the past walks the runway, it deserves to be introduced properly.

The Prada-Kolhapuri moment was not a clash, nor a scandal. It was a revelation and a sharp reminder that legal protection without practical enforceability is an illusion. It showed us that unless we rethink how we protect, platform, and promote our traditional crafts, they will continue to be admired from afar, yet excluded from the gains of global recognition. In the end, Geographical Indication should not just preserve a legacy, it must empower the communities that live it. Until then, the Kolhapuri chappal may walk global runways, but its rightful makers will still be left behind the curtain.