‘GI proprietors can file suit’: HC dismisses PIL by lawyers against ‘unauthorised use’ of Kolhapuri chappal by Prada
The plea also sought compensation to the artisans’ community for “reputational and economic damages”.
4 min read
Advocate Ganesh Hingmire for petitioners responded that although they were not owners or proprietors of GI, they had worked for the community to protect their intellectual property rights, which were infringed due to Prada’s action.
The Bombay High Court Wednesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) by six Pune-based lawyers seeking action against Italian luxury brand Prada for allegedly showcasing footwear resembling Kolhapuri chappal in its spring-summer 2026 menswear collection.
A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V Marne was hearing a PIL, which claimed that the Kolhapuri chappal was already protected as a Geographical Indication (GI) under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act and is a “cultural symbol” of Maharashtra.
The court asked the petitioners what their “locus standi” was, and what the “public interest” was. It also asked them why the Sant Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) of Maharashtra government, which was made a respondent, could not file the suit.
The petitioners, among other prayers, sought direction restraining Prada from commercialising and using the “toe ring sandals”, claiming that the same was originally “Kolhapuri chappal” and they cannot use the same without any authorisation availed from the registered proprietor or authorised users.
The plea also sought compensation to the artisans’ community for “reputational and economic damages”.
The bench orally questioned petitioners, “You want an injunction in PIL? Let (the) affected parties file a suit. Why can’t the proprietors of GI file it? You will have to tell us two things. What is your locus standi and public interest? Every person, whosoever is aggrieved by infringement of GI can take action in accordance with law. If you are an aggrieved person, do so. Infringement action cannot be decided in PIL. It will require evidence. It is not that the proprietor of GI cannot come to the court due to social or economic background that you (petitioners) have to espouse their cause. The proprietors can take their own action.”
Advocate Ganesh Hingmire for petitioners responded that although they were not owners or proprietors of GI, they had worked for the community to protect their intellectual property rights, which were infringed due to Prada’s action.
Senior advocate Ravi Kadam for PRADA Group contested the maintainability of the plea, stating that the petitioners lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file it. He argued that the two leather industries or corporations from Maharashtra and Karnataka are jointly registered proprietors of the GI and have the right to file a suit for infringement in case the word “Kolhapuri” is used in relation to footwear.
After perusing submissions, the bench in its order noted that LIDCOM and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) of Karnataka government, were registered proprietors of GI for Kolhapuri Chappals and “they can bring an action against any unauthorised user for infringement” through a suit under the GI Act, if they believe PRADA unauthorisedly used registered GI.
The HC said that such an action cannot be permitted to be agitated through PIL and that both the organisations were established to look after welfare of artisans and “posses necessary wherewithal” for bringing action against PRADA. Dismissing the PIL, the HC also said adjudication of dispute on claims of similarity between two products and infringement required leading of evidence and same cannot be under through PIL.
The HC clarified that the dismissal should not “come in the way of registered proprietors of GI in Kolhapuri Chappal to initiate action against PRADA in accordance with law, if they so desire.”
You May Like
Photos
