Bombay HC dismisses PIL by lawyers against ‘unauthorised use’ of Kolhapuri chappal by Prada, says affected parties can file suit
Prada allegedly showcased footwear resembling Kolhapuri chappal in its spring-summer 2026 menswear collection.
3 min read
Prada's latest collection drops Kolhapuri chappals (Source: Instagram/@nikhilmansata)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 Leather Industries Development Corporation of Maharashtra (LIDСOМ), 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 PIL further sought a public apology from Prada, acknowledging the alleged unauthorised use of the ‘Kolhapuri chappal’, and ensuring that no such use would occur in the future, and to expressly recognise the rights of the Indian artisans’ community. 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.”
The petitioners responded that, although they were not owners or proprietors of GI, they had worked for the community to protect their intellectual property rights. The proprietor of GI or artisans, they argued, could not come to court due to social and economic constraints, and as a result, the community was deprived of its intellectual property rights.
Senior advocate Ravi Kadam for Prada 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 hearing the submissions, the high court said, “PIL is dismissed, reasons to follow.” The detailed order will be made in due course.
You May Like
Photos
