Case name: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire And Ors vs Prada Group
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:29310-DB
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Coram: Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice & Sandeep V. Marne, Justice
Abstract
This case comment analyses the decision made in Adv. Ganesh Hingmire v Prada & Ors. At a Milan show, Prada presented sandals that were virtually identical to the unique chappals that have been made in Kolhapur and adjoining locations for almost a thousand years, with their distinctive tanned leather and toe rings. Despite Kolhapuri Chappals being a registered Geographical Indication, meaning that only craftsmen from eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka can produce them, there was a catch – Prada never claimed they were from Kolhapur. Legal action could not be taken. A Public Interest Litigation was filed, but to no avail. An alternate remedy, a passing off action, was technically available. Since the fundamental rights of workers were possibly violated, and the existing remedies would not be effective, a Public Interest Litigation could have been entertained.
Introduction
Fashion follows a pattern. Products with evidently Indian roots are remade without changes, remarketed using Western terminology and sold with no reference to their cultural origin, let alone remuneration. Dupattas are called Scandinavian scarves, Madras checks – quintessentially British pyjamas, and turbans are sold as fashion statements, removed from any religious meaning.
Italian luxury house Prada is no exception. It produced what it christened “toe-ring sandals” strikingly similar to the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals from Maharashtra. Despite Prada admitting that they took inspiration, their initial response was limited to a private apology.
Adv. Ganesh Hingmire filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Bombay High Court, arguing that Prada could grossly affect the local trade without a public apology, compensation to local artisans and of course, a permanent injunction on the sale of these ‘toe-ringed sandals’.
No action could be taken for violation of geographical indication since Prada did not deceive consumers into believing the product originated from Kolhapur. In fact, it did the inverse – replicating the design to a T while passing it off as completely original. The holders of the GI tag and respondents in the case, LIDCOM (Leather Industries Development Corporation, Maharashtra) and LIDKAR (its equivalent in Karnataka) were unwilling to file a passing off suit, likely due to the financial intimidation of cross border litigation.
These slippers were priced exorbitantly compared to local charges, at 1 lakh a pair. Prada would be profiting heavily from a craft that was never theirs, to an extent unimaginable to those whom the craft actually belonged. Some legal action was necessary to protect the artisans and their local craft from creative theft and hefty losses.
Regardless, since there was technically an alternate remedy available, the judges considered a PIL unmaintainable, and the case was dismissed. The article analyzes this decision, focusing on whether the case falls under “public interest” and why, and in which situations a PIL can be entertained even if an alternate remedy is available.
Facts
1. Prof Adv Ganesh Hingmire along with five other advocates filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 seeking a writ petition against the Prada group along with its Indian subsidiary, the state of Maharashtra and LIDCOM.
2. The petitioners primarily sought a restraint order against Prada’s toe-ring sandals, along with other reliefs to prevent any damage to local artisans and to protect the economic viability of the traditional craft.
3.The Kolhapuri Chappal is a protected product under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Tag Specification No. 483). The holders of this GI tag are LIDCOM and LIDKAR, representing artisans across eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
4. The petitioner argued that certain fundamental rights (21, 29 and 51A) had been violated by Prada.
5. The respondents contended that a PIL could not be filed against Prada, a private entity. They also noted that, if willing, LIDCOM and LIDKAR could pursue a lawsuit.
Issues
The foremost issue in this case is whether PILs are permissible despite alternate remedies being available in situations where harm is genuinely caused to a vulnerable group, particularly because these remedies are impractical to exercise. The case raised valid questions. What actions can the state take to ensure that international brands do not affect the businesses of local corporations? How to pursue GI tag infringement in cross-border contexts?
Reasoning
The judges were of the opinion that LIDCOM and LIDKAR, the state-run entities that hold the Geographical Indication Tag, could pursue legal action if they desired. A PIL cannot be filed for an action that can be brought through a lawsuit, nor can it be filed against private individuals. They held that intellectual property is a highly specialised field that summary jurisdiction (a process to expedite legal processes where a detailed analysis of facts is less necessary, used in PILs) is not equipped to handle.
Critique
The judges’ rationale is understandable. If a PIL were allowed for any case affecting a large group of people, even when a separate legal pathway has been laid out, the court would be inundated with cases. The distinction is, this is not any case.
It has been established by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks that while in most cases, it’s true alternative remedies must be pursued before writs –
1) Such alternate remedies should be effective
2) In case a fundamental right has been violated, the requirement can be bypassed.
Adv. Hingmire argued that Article 21, 29 and 51(A) of the constitution have been violated (right to life extended to livelihood, and rights to preservation of culture). Considering the GI act is unviable here, this alternate remedy cannot be considered effective. The proposed measures in this case, including a public apology and committee for GI protection in international markets could have set a strong precedent to protect the work of local artisans from blatant appropriation. The inapplicability of the GI act in the situation it was meant to apply in shows that existing frameworks are far less than satisfactory.
Impact
Thankfully, the backlash did not go entirely unnoticed. Prada collaborated with LIDCOM and LIDKAR for a “Made in India Kolhapuri Chappal” collection to “enable artisans to create products that meet evolving market needs, while ensuring the continued relevance of this traditional craft”. It is fortunate that this dispute was resolved amicably, but future situations where large conglomerates imitate designs from small artisans wearing the thin veil of “inspiration” might not be resolved at all.
The decision in Prada v Kolhapuri Chappals points to the utilization of public remedies being closed off in such circumstances. And as established, private IP protection suits tend to range from greatly impractical to impossible to pursue for the bodies in charge. Effectively, their hands are tied from taking any legal action whatsoever. The same problems geographical indications were aimed at to protect against could crop up – artisans lose exclusive rights to their traditional knowledge, and regional economies seriously suffer. To be effective in contexts where the unique artistic output of a region is reproduced without giving it credit, rather than when the name of a region is used to pass off unrelated work, the provisions of the GI act need to be rethought.
Conclusion
There are strong counterarguments against using a Public Interest Litigation for a GI infringement case. But it’s simultaneously true that, looking at the existing remedies under the GI ACT (1999), a PIL was the most logical pathway through which legal action could be pursued. GI tags must offer stronger protection in practice, not solely in name.
References
Prof Adv Ganesh S Hingmire And Ors vs Prada Group And Ors (2025) BHC-AS:29310-DB
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The Hindu, ‘Global fashion giant Prada acknowledges Kolhapuri inspiration’ (2025) [https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/prada-finally-acknowledges-kolhapuri-chappals-inspiration-for-footwear-in-fashion-show/article69747610.ece]
Taniskha Goswami, SpicyIP, The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? ‘Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation & More’ (4 July 2025), [https://spicyip.com/2025/07/the-devil-wears-kolhapuri-or-prada-understanding-gi-law-cultural-appropriation-more.html]
Can PILs Protect a Traditional Craft?
Siyona Shetty
Maharashtra National Law University, Mumbai
Case name: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire And Ors vs Prada Group
Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:29310-DB
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Coram: Alok Aradhe, Chief Justice & Sandeep V. Marne, Justice
Abstract
This case comment analyses the decision made in Adv. Ganesh Hingmire v Prada & Ors. At a Milan show, Prada presented sandals that were virtually identical to the unique chappals that have been made in Kolhapur and adjoining locations for almost a thousand years, with their distinctive tanned leather and toe rings. Despite Kolhapuri Chappals being a registered Geographical Indication, meaning that only craftsmen from eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka can produce them, there was a catch – Prada never claimed they were from Kolhapur. Legal action could not be taken. A Public Interest Litigation was filed, but to no avail. An alternate remedy, a passing off action, was technically available. Since the fundamental rights of workers were possibly violated, and the existing remedies would not be effective, a Public Interest Litigation could have been entertained.
Introduction
Fashion follows a pattern. Products with evidently Indian roots are remade without changes, remarketed using Western terminology and sold with no reference to their cultural origin, let alone remuneration. Dupattas are called Scandinavian scarves, Madras checks – quintessentially British pyjamas, and turbans are sold as fashion statements, removed from any religious meaning.
Italian luxury house Prada is no exception. It produced what it christened “toe-ring sandals” strikingly similar to the GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals from Maharashtra. Despite Prada admitting that they took inspiration, their initial response was limited to a private apology.
Adv. Ganesh Hingmire filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Bombay High Court, arguing that Prada could grossly affect the local trade without a public apology, compensation to local artisans and of course, a permanent injunction on the sale of these ‘toe-ringed sandals’.
No action could be taken for violation of geographical indication since Prada did not deceive consumers into believing the product originated from Kolhapur. In fact, it did the inverse – replicating the design to a T while passing it off as completely original. The holders of the GI tag and respondents in the case, LIDCOM (Leather Industries Development Corporation, Maharashtra) and LIDKAR (its equivalent in Karnataka) were unwilling to file a passing off suit, likely due to the financial intimidation of cross border litigation.
These slippers were priced exorbitantly compared to local charges, at 1 lakh a pair. Prada would be profiting heavily from a craft that was never theirs, to an extent unimaginable to those whom the craft actually belonged. Some legal action was necessary to protect the artisans and their local craft from creative theft and hefty losses.
Regardless, since there was technically an alternate remedy available, the judges considered a PIL unmaintainable, and the case was dismissed. The article analyzes this decision, focusing on whether the case falls under “public interest” and why, and in which situations a PIL can be entertained even if an alternate remedy is available.
Facts
1. Prof Adv Ganesh Hingmire along with five other advocates filed a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 seeking a writ petition against the Prada group along with its Indian subsidiary, the state of Maharashtra and LIDCOM.
2. The petitioners primarily sought a restraint order against Prada’s toe-ring sandals, along with other reliefs to prevent any damage to local artisans and to protect the economic viability of the traditional craft.
3.The Kolhapuri Chappal is a protected product under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (GI Tag Specification No. 483). The holders of this GI tag are LIDCOM and LIDKAR, representing artisans across eight districts in Maharashtra and Karnataka.
4. The petitioner argued that certain fundamental rights (21, 29 and 51A) had been violated by Prada.
5. The respondents contended that a PIL could not be filed against Prada, a private entity. They also noted that, if willing, LIDCOM and LIDKAR could pursue a lawsuit.
Issues
The foremost issue in this case is whether PILs are permissible despite alternate remedies being available in situations where harm is genuinely caused to a vulnerable group, particularly because these remedies are impractical to exercise. The case raised valid questions. What actions can the state take to ensure that international brands do not affect the businesses of local corporations? How to pursue GI tag infringement in cross-border contexts?
Reasoning
The judges were of the opinion that LIDCOM and LIDKAR, the state-run entities that hold the Geographical Indication Tag, could pursue legal action if they desired. A PIL cannot be filed for an action that can be brought through a lawsuit, nor can it be filed against private individuals. They held that intellectual property is a highly specialised field that summary jurisdiction (a process to expedite legal processes where a detailed analysis of facts is less necessary, used in PILs) is not equipped to handle.
Critique
The judges’ rationale is understandable. If a PIL were allowed for any case affecting a large group of people, even when a separate legal pathway has been laid out, the court would be inundated with cases. The distinction is, this is not any case.
It has been established by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v Registrar of Trademarks that while in most cases, it’s true alternative remedies must be pursued before writs –
1) Such alternate remedies should be effective
2) In case a fundamental right has been violated, the requirement can be bypassed.
Adv. Hingmire argued that Article 21, 29 and 51(A) of the constitution have been violated (right to life extended to livelihood, and rights to preservation of culture). Considering the GI act is unviable here, this alternate remedy cannot be considered effective. The proposed measures in this case, including a public apology and committee for GI protection in international markets could have set a strong precedent to protect the work of local artisans from blatant appropriation. The inapplicability of the GI act in the situation it was meant to apply in shows that existing frameworks are far less than satisfactory.
Impact
Thankfully, the backlash did not go entirely unnoticed. Prada collaborated with LIDCOM and LIDKAR for a “Made in India Kolhapuri Chappal” collection to “enable artisans to create products that meet evolving market needs, while ensuring the continued relevance of this traditional craft”. It is fortunate that this dispute was resolved amicably, but future situations where large conglomerates imitate designs from small artisans wearing the thin veil of “inspiration” might not be resolved at all.
The decision in Prada v Kolhapuri Chappals points to the utilization of public remedies being closed off in such circumstances. And as established, private IP protection suits tend to range from greatly impractical to impossible to pursue for the bodies in charge. Effectively, their hands are tied from taking any legal action whatsoever. The same problems geographical indications were aimed at to protect against could crop up – artisans lose exclusive rights to their traditional knowledge, and regional economies seriously suffer. To be effective in contexts where the unique artistic output of a region is reproduced without giving it credit, rather than when the name of a region is used to pass off unrelated work, the provisions of the GI act need to be rethought.
Conclusion
There are strong counterarguments against using a Public Interest Litigation for a GI infringement case. But it’s simultaneously true that, looking at the existing remedies under the GI ACT (1999), a PIL was the most logical pathway through which legal action could be pursued. GI tags must offer stronger protection in practice, not solely in name.
References
Prof Adv Ganesh S Hingmire And Ors vs Prada Group And Ors (2025) BHC-AS:29310-DB
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999
The Hindu, ‘Global fashion giant Prada acknowledges Kolhapuri inspiration’ (2025) [https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/fashion/prada-finally-acknowledges-kolhapuri-chappals-inspiration-for-footwear-in-fashion-show/article69747610.ece]
Taniskha Goswami, SpicyIP, The Devil Wears Kolhapuri or Prada? ‘Understanding GI Law, Cultural Appropriation & More’ (4 July 2025), [https://spicyip.com/2025/07/the-devil-wears-kolhapuri-or-prada-understanding-gi-law-cultural-appropriation-more.html]
Share Us On Socials
Other Recent Blog Posts
THE POTATO PATENT BATTLE
CASE NAME: PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Kavitha Kuruganti CITATION: C.A. (COMM.IPD-PV) 2/2022 & IAs 7898/2022 & 7900/2022, decided on 5 July 2023 COURT:
OWNING YOUR DIGITAL DOPPELGANGER
ABSTRACT Who owns your digital twin, and who protects it? Imagine a doppelganger of yourself or your machine, not in flesh and blood but in
FROM PITCH TO PIRACY
PROTECTING CREATIVE EXPRESSION CASE NAME: Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Sundial Communications Pvt. Ltd. CITATION: 2003 (5) BOM CR 404; 2003 (3) MHLJ 695; 2003 (27)
PROTECTING THE BLUEPRINT
SILICON’S SILENT BATTLE ABSTRACT What happens when the invisible blueprint of our digital age the chip layout becomes the target of piracy? Who owns the
BOTTLE BATTLES
TRADE DRESS AND SHAPE MARKS IN VODKA BRANDING CASE NAME: Gorbatschow Wodka KG v. John Distilleries Ltd. CITATION: 2011 (47) PTC 100 (Bom); Notice of
FROM LAUGHTER TO LAWSUITS
THE COPYRIGHT STORY BEHIND MEMES Abstract People everywhere laugh at their phones not because of the device, but because someone has cleverly mocked a scenario