Pune: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court demanding that the Italian fashion house Prada should pay monetary compensation to the artisans making Kolhapuri chappals. Prada had presented a toe ring sandal collection at Milan that was inspired by India’s Kolhapuri Chappal.
The petitioner is an intellectual property advocate Ganesh Hingmire, who has named the leading global fashion brands that have copied Indian traditional designs like brocade, block printing, bandhani, dressing styles like Sharara and the saree.
The PIL has also demanded a court-supervised collaboration between Prada and artisan associations for co-branding, capacity building, and revenue-sharing.
“A legal order in this case will prevent other international companies from imitating or duplicating Indian GI products,” the PIL said.
“Expecting these fragmented artisan groups to individually file civil suits against a global fashion conglomerate is unrealistic and unjust,” said Hingmire, justifying the rationale behind the PIL.
The PIL also sought directions to government entities and authorities for forming associations of producers and farming policies for swift intervention against international GI infringement.
The industry body Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA), which had first written a letter to Prada about the issue, thinks that this is a blessing in disguise for the heritage product at the centre of the controversy.
“We will like Prada to impart technical skills to our artisans and set up an excellence lab not only for chappal but also for other products like the Paithani saree and anklet from Hupari near Kolhapur,” said Lalit Gandhi, MACCIA.
The MACCIA thinks that the protection under the GI law is not so strong at the international level. “We have decided to initiate the process to get a patent as it offers stronger legal protection than GI for all the products that have GI registration,” said Gandhi.
Hingmire pointed out that India has successfully fought infringement of GI violation at international level in the case of Darjeeling Tea, whose GI was protected by the Tea Board.
