India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappal : Recent Controversy

India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappal : Recent Controversy

Why in News?   In June 2025, Prada, an Italian luxury brand, introduced footwear inspired by India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals during its Spring/Summer 2026 menswear show in Milan, sparking widespread criticism in India for cultural appropriation.

Relevance : UPSC Pre &  Mains

Prelims : GI Tag / Paris Convention (1883) and the TRIPS Agreement (1995)

Mains :   GS 3

Key Facts:

GI-tagged Products in India: India has 658 registered GI products, including textiles (e.g., Kancheepuram silk), agricultural goods (e.g., Basmati rice), handicrafts (e.g., Madhubani paintings), and food items (e.g., Darjeeling tea).

Legal Framework: India’s Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, aligns with the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, offering registration, protection, and penalties for misuse of GI-tagged products.

Global Limitation: GI protection is territorial, meaning India’s GI tags, like that of Kolhapuri chappals, do not automatically extend to other countries such as Italy or the U.S.

Historical Precedents: India has successfully challenged cultural misappropriation cases, including the Basmati rice patent (1997), turmeric patent (1995), and neem patent (2000).

Geographical Indications: A Tool for Cultural Preservation:

• A Geographical Indication (GI) is an intellectual property right that links a product’s quality, reputation, or unique characteristics to its specific geographic origin. Unlike trademarks, which are owned by individuals or entities, GI tags are collectively held by communities of producers, artisans, or farmers, and they cannot be transferred or sold.
• India’s rich cultural heritage, reflected in its 658 GI-tagged products, spans diverse sectors such as agriculture, textiles, handicrafts, and food. Examples include the intricate Kancheepuram silk, the aromatic Darjeeling tea, and the handcrafted Kolhapuri chappals, which are emblematic of Maharashtra’s artisanal legacy.

The Prada-Kolhapuri Controversy:

• In June 2025, Prada’s Spring/Summer 2026 menswear collection in Milan featured footwear strikingly similar to India’s GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals, priced at over Rs1 lakh per pair. This move drew sharp criticism from Indian netizens, artisans, and policymakers, who accused the brand of cultural appropriation for failing to acknowledge the chappals’ Indian origins or share benefits with the artisans of Maharashtra and Karnataka.
• The controversy underscores the broader issue of global brands leveraging Indian cultural heritage without proper credit or respect, reigniting debates about the efficacy of GI protections in a globalized world.

Legal Framework for GI Protection:

India’s commitment to protecting its cultural and traditional assets is rooted in the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, effective since 2003. This legislation, aligned with the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement, provides:

• Registration: Formal recognition of products tied to specific regions.
• Legal Safeguards: Protection against unauthorized use or imitation.
• Penalties: Consequences for infringement to deter misuse.
• Empowerment: Authorized users can pursue legal action against violations.

Globally, GI protections are supported by agreements like the Paris Convention (1883) and the TRIPS Agreement (1995). However, a key challenge is that GI rights are not universally enforceable. A product protected in India, such as Kolhapuri chappals, may not enjoy the same safeguards in foreign jurisdictions, leaving it vulnerable to appropriation.

India’s Battles against Cultural Appropriation:

India has faced several high-profile cases of cultural and biological appropriation, demonstrating the need for robust protective mechanisms:

• Basmati Rice (1997): A U.S. company, Ricetec Inc., patented certain Basmati rice strains, prompting India to challenge and successfully nullify the patent.
• Turmeric (1995): The University of Mississippi patented turmeric’s medicinal properties, a practice long established in Indian Ayurveda. India’s intervention led to the patent’s revocation.
• Neem (2000): A neem-based patent granted to a U.S. agency was overturned by the European Patent Office after India provided evidence of its traditional use.

These victories highlight India’s proactive stance in defending its heritage but also expose the limitations of existing frameworks when confronting global appropriation.

Strengthening Cultural Protections:

While GI tags provide robust domestic safeguards, their lack of international enforceability poses a challenge. To address this, experts suggest:

• Bilateral Agreements: Negotiating mutual GI recognition with other countries.
• Foreign Registration: Registering Indian GIs in key international markets.
• Trade Agreements: Embedding GI protections in Free Trade Agreements to ensure global compliance.
• Expanding the TKDL: The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, currently focused on medicinal knowledge, could be broadened to include cultural artifacts, crafts, and designs. A searchable, global database would enable brands to conduct due diligence and avoid appropriation.

Additionally, raising awareness among global corporations about the cultural significance of GI-tagged products and fostering benefit-sharing with local artisans could bridge the gap between cultural appreciation and appropriation.