India, July 4 -- The leather sandals seen on the ramp for the Prada Men Spring Summer 2026 collection have recently been in the eye of a storm. While Prada has now acknowledged that the products were inspired by the traditional Kolhapuri chappals (a registered Geographical Indication since 2019) has any law been broken here? To unpack the controversy, one must first understand what a GI registration really means. A geographical indication is a tag given to a product (natural or man made) that originates in a particular place and has a particular set of characteristics. Kolhapuri chappals are identified in the registration as a species of open Indian footwear made of bag tanned leather with vegetable dyes, produced using traditional techniques and tools. According to the registration, these products use buffalo hide, cow hide, calf skins of buff and cow treated with lime (slaked) and tanned using vegetable tanning material (Babulbark and myrobalan nuts), and sisal fibre for stitching. They also involve the use of hand tools for unhairing, fleshing, beaming and scrubbing. The GI law merely serves as a badge of origin and authenticity for a craft or product that comes from a particular region. For example, tea that is not grown in Darjeeling under a specific set of circumstances cannot be called Darjeeling tea. However, if tea grown elsewhere mimics the taste and aroma of a perfect cup of first flush from Darjeeling without using the word on its product packaging or promotion, the law will let you drink your tea (or spill it), without interfering. GI infringement occurs when a product is mis-tagged, i.e. something made elsewhere under a different set of conditions and/or using different raw materials is sold as the original GI tagged product. If Prada sold products tagged as Kolhapuri chappals when they were in fact not made in Maharashtra or Karnataka according to the specifications of the GI registration, only then would the question of infringement arise. That is clearly not the case here. So irrespective of how rankled one may feel, there is no actionable claim that can be made in this instance, for the infringement of a GI or any other form of intellectual property. In this backdrop, should we demand that since these sandals resemble Kolhapuri chappals, Prada should call them by that name? A brand's decision as to where they manufacture their products is a purely commercial one. Prada currently does not manufacture its leather footwear in India. It has its own set of quality control measures and product specifications, that could potentially conflict with the specifications of a GI tagged product. So, a demand that Prada tag their products as Kolhapuri chappals makes sense only if they are manufactured in the specific districts of Maharashtra or Karnataka in accordance with the criteria of the GI registration and are not based on Prada's own specifications and materials. If they don't do either, then it would be a mis-description to tag the products as Kolhapuri chappals and ultimately a disservice to the original craft and its GI registration. I can almost hear you asking, "then what is the point of the registration?" A GI registration helps set standards for the product; it regulates the place of manufacture, the raw materials and technique used. If the raw materials and techniques are accurate but the place of manufacture is different, it is at best an "inspiration" - the product cannot be sold under the GI tag, which appears to be the case here. And the question of acknowledging inspiration is a purely ethical and moral question, not a legal one. So does this mean that Prada now "owns" Kolhapuri chappals? The answer is again, no! Designer apparel and accessories are protected (after registration) under the Designs Act, 2000 in India. For a design to be registrable it needs to be original and not in the public domain. The risk that a luxury brand takes with potentially launching a product that is firmly in the public domain is that it cannot claim infringement against third party knock-offs since the design in this case would not be registrable in Prada's favour. But here again, it is important to remember that the commercial decision of whether these products will traverse the path from ramp to retail has not been publicly declared. So the claim that Prada will be "selling" these for a lakh plus is at best a click-bait headline for the moment. Now that the law is done and dusted, the question of ethics and cultural appropriation must be addressed. Although there is no actionable legal claim against Prada, the public clamour and PR backlash have resulted in opening up a channel of communication between them and the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce. Whether it will result in tokenism or a commercial boost to the traditional practitioners of the craft, remains to be seen. The one definite positive outcome I see from this controversy is an uptick in the sales of the original Kolhapuri chappals. With a foreign luxury brand's apparent endorsement, we will hopefully see our heritage products as cool! After all, what's sauce for the goose is chutney for the gander!...