In the first months of 2025, the Italian luxury giant Prada faced a firestorm of criticism for releasing a line of sandals that had a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri chappal, a handcrafted leather sandal from Maharashtra, India. This incident is far more than a story of cultural appropriation. It is argued in this blog that the Prada-Kolhapuri chappal judgement is not just an isolated incident, but it exposes the inherent insufficiency of the Western IP framework in protecting the collective rights under TCEs (Traditional Cultural Expressions). The new WIPO 2024 Treaty, while a slight progression for the protection of Traditional Knowledge, still fails due to its limited focus on Genetic Resources, excluding TCEs.
To set up the context of the argument of this blog, it is important to understand TCEs. Traditional Knowledge (TK) is a broad umbrella term, generally categorized into two main types: Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs), which are the artistic and cultural manifestations like music, designs, and symbols, and Genetic Resources (GRs) and associated knowledge, which relate to the use of biological material, such as medicinal plants. Traditional Cultural Expressions are the tangible and intangible forms through which indigenous and local communities express their cultural and social identity, worldviews, and spirituality. These expressions, encompassing everything from patterns and symbols to music and performances, are often considered inalienable, collectively owned, and sacred by the communities that create and sustain them. This places them in a category distinct from standard intellectual property, which is designed for individual, commercial exploitation over a limited time.
The Judgement: Exposing a Legal Vacuum
The 2025 Prada case perfectly exposes a broken system. The brand's sandals, deriving unmistakably from the Kolhapuri chappal's design, were sold for over ₹1,50,000, while the authentic, handcrafted originals sell for a few thousand rupees. Notably, Prada's creative director later admitted that the collection was 'inspired by traditional Indian footwear,' effectively acknowledging the source of their design. The Kolhapuri chappal holds a Geographical Indication (GI) tag since 2019. A PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court seeking a restraint order against Prada from using these sandals. However, it was dismissed, as the court reasoned that a civil suit by the GI's registered proprietors was the correct path for this purpose, not a public interest petition. Even if a civil suit was filed, it would be of little relief as the GI protection is limited. A GI safeguards the name "Kolhapuri chappal", but not the design itself. By avoiding the name and using its own branding, Prada exploited this legal loophole with impunity. Even Designs Act would not help as a design must be 'new and original' to be registered [The Designs Act, 2000, Section 2(g) and Section 4]. The Kolhapuri chappal's design, passed down through generations, does not qualify as 'new.' Therefore, the very law meant to protect designs explicitly excludes it, demonstrating the legal gap that keeps TCEs vulnerable.
The failure in the Prada case is not an anomaly but a symptom of a fundamental philosophical mismatch. There are several cases around the globe that reveal the same fundamental flaws in the IP system that disadvantage native communities. The Western IP framework is built on pillars that are inherently antagonistic to the very nature of TCEs. First, IP law revolves around individual ownership and identifiable authors. Copyright requires an author, patents require an inventor, industrial designs require an innovator. But who is the "author" of the Kolhapuri chappal? It is not a single person but generations of artisans from the Kolhapur region, a collective community whose contributions are merged into a shared cultural heritage. The law has no mechanism to recognize a community or a lineage of unnamed craftspeople as a rights-holding entity.
Second, IP protection is time-bound. Copyrights expire decades after the author's death, and patents last only 20 years. TCEs, by contrast, are ancient, living, and evolving traditions that require perpetual protection. To claim that a centuries-old design has entered the "public domain" and is free for commercial exploitation is a legal justification for piracy, effectively robbing communities of their heritage.
Finally, IP law requires novelty and originality. An invention must be new to be patented, and a design must be new and original to be registered. A work must be original to claim copyright. This immediately disqualifies most TCEs, which are valuable precisely because of their tradition and antiquity. The system is structurally blind to anything that isn 't novel, creating a legal vacuum where traditional knowledge is legally considered a "free resource" for corporations to exploit. When a corporation like Prada replicates a TCE, it strips the cultural symbol of its context, story, and spiritual significance, repackaging it as a luxury commodity. Some may argue that such corporate appropriation 'promotes' the culture globally, potentially driving economic benefit and tourism. However, this argument ignores the power imbalance. When a corporation repackages a TCE without context or credit, it often strips it of its spiritual and cultural significance. Any trickle-down benefit to the original artisans is incidental and negligible compared to the massive profits earned by the corporation. The cost of cultural appropriation and economic exploitation far outweighs any such incidental benefit.
To claim that these designs are in the 'public domain' is to use a legal technicality to justify an ethical wrong. This reveals the profound inadequacy of the IP system itself. This concept, born from a system designed for individual authors and inventors, is weaponized to strip communities of their cultural assets. By declaring a centuries-old, living tradition 'free for all', the law effectively legitimizes its corporate exploitation. It conveniently ignores established international norms like the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which upholds the rights of communities to control and benefit from their cultural heritage.
This act has a direct and damaging economic impact. It diverts revenue and market share away from the authentic artisans who rely on this craft for their livelihood. The community that created and sustained the tradition sees no financial benefit from the multi-million-dollar sales of its own heritage. Furthermore, it dilutes the cultural value and authenticity of the original product. When the market is flooded with mass-produced, branded interpretations, the unique identity and significance of the genuine artifact get eroded. The current IP framework, in its silence, becomes an accomplice to this economic and cultural exploitation, protecting the corporation's right to pirate more effectively than the community's right to own.
The WIPO 2024 Treaty's Limited Reach
The WIPO 2024 Treaty is hailed as a historic step for genetic resources, but the treaty's limitations are stark when applied to Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs). Its core mechanism of mandatory disclosure applies only to patent applications, a system rarely relevant to TCEs. Prada's appropriation occurred through design realm, not patents, leaving the treaty's safeguards ineffective. Furthermore, its framework for recognizing custodianship and benefit-sharing is narrowly tied to genetic resources, explicitly excluding the artistic and cultural expressions embodied in TCEs. This exclusion is precisely the gap that WIPO's own Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) has been struggling to fill for over two decades to secure a similar international instrument dedicated specifically to protecting TCEs.
Thus, the result is a fragmented system where biopiracy is addressed, but cultural piracy in form of the direct commercial replication of designs, remains entirely untouched. It is a landmark for one facet of traditional knowledge but not TCEs, meaning the Kolhapuri chappal remains as vulnerable after the treaty as it was before.
The Way Forward: A Sui-Generis System for TCEs
The 2025 Prada Kolhapuri case is a canonical case study that reveals a double failure: the failure of existing IP laws and a violation of fundamental indigenous rights recognized by international law. The WIPO 2024 Treaty represents a crucial step forward for genetic resources, yet there is continued marginalization of cultural heritage within the global IP framework.
The treaty's passage proves a consensus is forming that the status quo is unacceptable. However, the work is not complete. The international community must harness this momentum to conclude the long-pending work of the IGC on a sui generis instrument for TCEs, that moves beyond the Procrustean bed of Western IP law. This separate legal framework must be grounded in the core objectives championed by indigenous and local communities: preventing misappropriation, ensuring Free, Prior and Informed Consent of the traditional custodians, and guaranteeing equitable benefit-sharing. Drawing from the decades of work at WIPO's IGC, this system must be built on core principles that directly address the current gaps. There must be legal recognition of the community, not an individual, as the rights-holder. Perpetual Protection must be available to TCEs, reflecting their living nature. Protection should be granted based on the cultural significance and traditional origin of the expression, not its newness. The struggle must now be channelled into breaking the political deadlock within WIPO's IGC, transforming its decades of draft articles into a binding instrument that finally secures justice for the custodians of living culture.
Author is a law student at National Law University, Delhi
Views Are Personal.