A TEAM of experts from Prada visited Kolhapur to interact with artisans and assess the local footwear manufacturing process, days after the Italian luxury fashion brand was accused of appropriating the region’s famous flat sandals. Following the row, Prada had acknowledged that the sandals showcased in their men’s 2026 fashion show were “inspired” by traditional Indian handcrafted footwear.

 

“Four members of their technical team, including the heads of footwear design of Prada and two external consultants, visited Kolhapur on Tuesday. They toured the Kolhapuri chappal manufacturing cluster, observed the production process, and held discussions with local artisans,” said Lalit Gandhi, president of the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry, and Agriculture. 

 

 

THE Bombay High Court on Wednesday questioned the statutory right of six advocates to sue Italian fashion house Prada for its alleged unauthorised use of the famous Kolhapuri chappals, and dismissed their public interest litigation (PIL). A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne raised questions on the locus of the petitioning advocates, saying they were not the aggrieved persons or the registered proprietor or owner of the footwear. “What is your (petitioners’) statutory right?” HC asked. “You are not the owner of this Kolhapuri chappal. What is your locus and what is the public interest? Any person aggrieved can file a suit. What is the public interest in this,” the court asked. The plea had said the Kolhapuri chappal (sandals) is protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act.

 

The bench then said that the registered proprietor of the GI tag can come to court and espouse their own action. The court dismissed the plea and said it would pass a detailed order later. In their spring/summer collection, Prada showcased their toe-ring sandals, which the petition said are deceptively similar to the Kolhapuri chappals. These sandals are priced at Rs 1 lakh per pair. The bench also questioned how an injunction can be granted in a PIL and said the affected party can file a suit if they wish to. “Infringement action cannot be decided in a PIL. It has to be in a suit by the aggrieved person. Evidence will have to be looked into,” HC said.