PRADA vs. Kolhapuri Chappals: What the Bombay High Court Said About GI Rights

CASE SUMMARY

Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire & Ors. v. PRADA Group & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Coram: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date of Judgment: 16 July 2025
Case No.: PIL No. 72 of 2025

Parties:

• Petitioners:
  Six advocates led by Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire, claiming to act in public interest on behalf of artisans and the general public.
• Respondents:
  • Respondent No. 1: PRADA Group (Italy-based global fashion brand)
  • Respondent No. 2: PRADA’s Indian subsidiary
  • Respondents No. 3 to 5: Government entities including the State of Maharashtra

Factual Background:

• The petition challenged PRADA’s introduction of “Toe Ring Sandals” showcased during its Spring-Summer Men’s Collection in Milan on 22 June 2025.
• Petitioners alleged these sandals were deceptively similar to the Kolhapuri Chappal, a traditional Indian handcrafted footwear, which enjoys Geographical Indication (GI) protection since 2009.
• The GI registration is held jointly by two government-owned corporations:
  • LIDCOM (Maharashtra)
  • LIDKAR (Karnataka) (not impleaded in the petition)

Petitioners’ Contentions:

1. Unauthorized Use of GI: PRADA’s sandals closely resemble Kolhapuri Chappals and are being commercialized without authorization from GI proprietors.
2. Violation of GI Act: The design allegedly infringes Section 22 of the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999.
3. Constitutional Rights: The action infringes Article 21 (Right to Livelihood), Article 29 (Protection of Culture), Article 46 (Promotion of weaker sections), and Article 51A(f) (Duty to value heritage).
4. Public Interest: Artisans’ livelihoods are affected, and PRADA’s commercialization could lead to loss of heritage and economic harm to communities.
5. Inaction by Proprietors: Since the registered proprietors are government agencies, they may not proactively pursue enforcement.

Reliefs Sought:

• Injunction against PRADA from selling or marketing the sandals.
• Public apology from PRADA, to be widely published.
• Compensation for artisans.
• Guidelines for GI use by international brands.
• Formation of a committee to protect GI products globally.

Respondents’ Contentions:

1. Maintainability: PIL is not maintainable as it seeks to protect a private statutory right of registered proprietors, not a public right.
2. Alternative Remedy Exists: LIDCOM and LIDKAR are capable and empowered under the GI Act to initiate infringement actions.
3. No Standing: Petitioners lack locus standi to bring the action.
4. Private Entities: PRADA is not a “State” or instrumentality of the State; hence, PIL under Article 226 is not maintainable.
5. Fact-Intensive Disputes: The matter involves disputed facts requiring evidence, which cannot be resolved through writ jurisdiction.

Key Legal Findings:

1. Nature of GI Rights:
   • Under Sections 21 and 22 of the GI Act, only registered proprietors and authorized users have the right to initiate action for infringement.
   • The law provides a complete statutory remedy via civil suits and legal actions for GI enforcement.
2. Public Interest Litigation Principles:
   • Citing BALCO Employees Union v. Union of India, Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v. UOI, and Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan, the Court reiterated that PILs:
     • Must involve a public cause affecting the marginalized.
     • Cannot be used to enforce individual statutory rights.
     • Must not be misused for private or professional agendas.
3. Petition Not Maintainable:
   • The registered GI proprietors are governmental organizations, presumed to have capacity and resources to protect their rights.
   • Petitioners did not demonstrate that proprietors were incapable or unwilling to act.
   • Allegations of product similarity involve disputed facts that require trial and evidence—unsuitable for PIL or writ proceedings.

Conclusion:

• The High Court dismissed the PIL as not maintainable.
• It clarified that the judgment does not prevent the registered GI proprietors (LIDCOM and LIDKAR) from initiating appropriate civil or statutory proceedings against PRADA, if they believe infringement has occurred.

Significance of the Case:

• Reinforces limits of PIL jurisdiction, especially in the context of IPR and GI.
• Highlights the exclusive statutory remedies under the GI Act.
• Signals judicial reluctance to entertain PILs where properly equipped authorities have not exhausted their remedies.
• Recognizes the importance of cultural protection but within the framework of the law.

KS & CO’s Comments

This case highlights the significance of locus standi in legal proceedings. In similar circumstances, courts may take into account the economic status and practical viability of smaller organizations. An exception may be carved out in situations where financial or other constraints prevent such organizations, despite holding registered Geographical indications, from fully complying with the procedural requirements. In such cases, the Court may consider relaxing the obligation to obtain prior consent from the registered GI holders before examining the application on its merits.