Author: Urishtha Bhatnagar, Manipal University Jaipur
To the Point
In [PIL against Prada, 2025], the Bombay High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed against global fashion house Prada for allegedly infringing upon the Geographical Indication (GI) rights of Kolhapuri Chappals. The Court clarified that enforcement of GI rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (“GI Act”) can only be pursued by registered proprietors or authorised users through civil remedies, and not via a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Abstract
The petition, filed by six practicing advocates, sought judicial intervention to restrain Prada from marketing its “toe ring sandals” introduced at the Milan Spring-Summer Collection 2025. These sandals were alleged to be deceptively similar to the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals, an 800-year-old handcrafted footwear tradition from Maharashtra and Karnataka.
The petitioners contended that Prada’s commercialization without authorization violated Section 22 of the GI Act, eroded indigenous intellectual property, and endangered artisans’ cultural livelihood. They invoked Article 226, claiming it was a matter of cultural preservation in the larger public interest.
The Court, however, drew a sharp distinction: while preservation of cultural heritage is indeed a matter of public importance, the enforcement of GI rights is a private statutory remedy. Under Section 21 of the GI Act, only registered proprietors (here, LIDCOM and LIDKAR, two state corporations) or authorized users can sue for infringement. Since the dispute involved evidentiary questions like deceptive similarity, it could not be decided summarily under writ jurisdiction.
Use of Legal Jargon
Section 11, GI Act, 1999 – Enables associations, producers’ groups, or government bodies to apply for GI registration.
Section 21, GI Act, 1999 – Confers exclusive enforcement rights upon registered proprietors/authorized users.
Section 22, GI Act, 1999 – Defines GI infringement, including misrepresentation, misleading similarity, and unfair competition.
Article 226, Constitution of India – Empowers High Courts to issue writs, but not to adjudicate fact-intensive private disputes under special statutes.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) – A judicial tool for protecting diffuse rights of disadvantaged groups, not a substitute for statutory enforcement by competent rights-holders.
The Proof
GI Registration: Kolhapuri Chappals were granted GI protection in 2009 (valid till 2029), registered jointly in Maharashtra and Karnataka, with LIDCOM and LIDKAR as proprietors.
Prada’s Product: In June 2025, Prada launched “toe ring sandals,” priced above ₹1,00,000, triggering controversy for their resemblance to Kolhapuris.
Petitioners’ Claim: Argued violation of Section 22, alleging cultural misappropriation, loss of artisans’ market share, and dilution of GI integrity.
Respondent’s Defence: Prada contended that:
Only registered proprietors can file infringement suits under Section 21.
GI rights are territorial, limited to India, and do not extend to international fashion markets without separate protection.
Petitioners had no locus standi.
Court’s Ruling: The PIL was dismissed with liberty for LIDCOM and LIDKAR to pursue remedies before civil courts under the GI Act.
Case Laws
Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 5 SCC 520 – Misuse of PIL for private grievances must be discouraged.
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal (2010) 3 SCC 402 – Set guidelines to ensure PILs remain genuine instruments of social justice.
Tea Board of India v. ITC Ltd. (2011) – Established limits of GI enforcement, stressing evidentiary evaluation of “deceptive similarity.”
Darjeeling Tea Case (Global Context) – Reinforced that GIs require territorial enforcement and registration in each jurisdiction.
Champagne v. Yves Saint Laurent (France) – Use of “Champagne” in perfumes was curtailed to protect the wine industry.
Darjeeling Tea v. Twinings (UK) – Highlighted cross-border enforcement difficulties of Indian GIs.
Legislative Intent
The GI Act, 1999 was enacted to:
Protect traditional knowledge and community ownership.
Prevent misappropriation by commercial giants.
Provide producers with a marketing edge.
However, the Act also centralises enforcement with registered proprietors, ensuring uniformity and preventing frivolous claims. The Court’s ruling aligns with this design.
Implications
For Artisans: The decision highlights the need for proactive action by state corporations like LIDCOM and LIDKAR. Passive registration without active enforcement risks cultural dilution.
For Fashion Houses: Reinforces that while inspiration may be global, appropriation of protected GIs carries potential liability.
For PIL Jurisprudence: Draws a clear boundary—courts will not entertain PILs to enforce statutory proprietary rights.
For Policy: Calls for greater institutional support, perhaps a central GI enforcement authority, to avoid artisans being left dependent on state corporations’ litigation appetite.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s verdict in Kolhapuri v. Prada underscores the primacy of statutory enforcement under the GI Act. While the petitioners’ cultural concerns were legitimate, the Court reiterated that PILs cannot be used to bypass the Act’s specific enforcement framework. The ruling reflects judicial restraint—recognising the artisans’ plight, yet ensuring fidelity to legislative design. The ball is now firmly in the court of LIDCOM and LIDKAR to protect Kolhapuri artisans by pursuing civil remedies against Prada.
FAQs
1. Who can file a suit for GI infringement?
Only registered proprietors or authorized users under Section 21 of the GI Act.
2. Why was the PIL dismissed?
Because it attempted to enforce proprietary statutory rights, which require evidentiary adjudication, not writ jurisdiction.
3. Can LIDCOM or LIDKAR still act against Prada?
Yes, the Court left open the possibility of a civil suit under Section 22.
4. What broader principle did the Court highlight?
That PILs cannot substitute remedies under special statutes where competent rights-holders already exist.
5. Does GI protection extend internationally?
Not automatically. Separate registration or bilateral agreements are needed for enforcement abroad.
