Bombay High Court Rejects PIL Accusing Global Fashion Giant PRADA Of Copying "Kolhapuri Chappals"

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 16) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a restraining order against global fashion giant PRADA from commercializing and using "toe ring sandals" which is alleged to be deceptively similar to the GI tagged "Kolhapuri Chappal" without authorisation. 

In doing so the court observed that the proprietors who had been granted GI registration can protect their rights by taking action against Prada if they believe that the fashion giant is unauthorisedly using the registered GI; however a PIL for the same cannot be permitted. 

A division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne noted that - Sant. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) have been granted registration for the Kolhapuri Chappals under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration of Protection) Act, (GI) 1999.

"LIDCOM is a Corporation under the administrative control of the Government of Maharashtra. Similarly, LIDKAR appears to be a Corporation of the Government of Karnataka. Both the registered proprietors are well equipped to protect their rights flowing from registered GI in Kolhapuri Chappals by bringing action against PRADA, if they believe that PRADA is unauthorisedly using the registered GI. An action which can be brought by way of a suit by registered proprietor of GI cannot be permitted to be agitated through a PIL. It is not the case of the Petitioners that on account of social or economic background, the registered proprietors are incapable of agitating their own rights by exercising statutory remedies," the bench said in the order. 

 The bench further observed that issue of similarity between two products and infringement action involves disputed questions of facts which needs leading of evidence. Thus on this count as well, an infringement action in registered GI cannot be brought by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it added.

The bench therefore, dismissed the petition filed by six advocates who had apart from seeking restraint order, had also sought a public apology from PRADA acknowledging unauthorised use of Kolhapuri Chappal with a further direction of wider circulation of such apology through appropriate media.

The petitioners also sought permanent injunction against use by PRADA of the 'Kolhapuri Chappal', as well as, compensation to the artisans community for reputational and economic damages.

According to the petitioners, PRADA held an event of 'Spring Summer Men's Collection' at Milan, Italy on June 22, 2025 and introduced 'Toe Ring Sandals'. During the course of the event, the designers did not acknowledge that the product was inspired from Kolhapuri Chappals. The petitioners contended that the product showcased by PRADA in the said event, beared a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappals and the product is reportedly priced at over Rs.1,00,000.

Opposing the PIL, PRADA through senior counsel Ravi Kadam pointed out that LIDCOM and LIDKAR have been granted the registration in respect of the Kolhapuri Chappals. He argued that if PRADA's act violates any of the statutory right of the said proprietors, they need to adopt appropriate remedy by filing Civil Suit and violation of their statutory right cannot be agitated by Petitioners in a PIL.

The bench thus dismissed the PIL.

Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire vs PRADA Group (PIL 72 of 2025)

Counsel for petitioner: Advocates Ganesh Hingmire, Vrushali Maindad and Prasad Sapate 

Counsel for PRADA group: Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam along with Advocates Hiren Kamod, V Mohini, Aarti Aggarwal, Karan Khiani and Rohan Lopes 

Counsel for State: Government Pleader Neha Bhide along with Additional Government Pleader OA Chandurkar and Assistant Government Pleader GR Raghunwanshi

Click Here To Read/Download Order