Kolhapuri Chappals Gi Registration

14 Jan 2026 --
0 Comments

1. Background: Kolhapuri Chappals and GI Registration

Kolhapuri chappals are traditional handcrafted leather sandals originating from Kolhapur in Maharashtra and adjoining districts. They are known for their distinctive braided leather design, T-strap, and toe loop, and have been crafted using traditional techniques for centuries.

Geographical Indication (GI) Registration:

Kolhapuri chappals were registered as a Geographical Indication in India in July 2019 under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.

Registration applies to footwear in Class 25 and is jointly held by Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd (LIDCOM), Maharashtra and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd (LIDKAR), Karnataka.

Purpose of GI Registration:

Protects the name “Kolhapuri Chappal” and ensures that only authentic producers from the registered region can use it.

Helps prevent imitation and misrepresentation, protecting local artisans.

2. Legal Framework of GI Protection

The GI Act, 1999 gives registered proprietors and authorized users the right to:

Use the GI exclusively in relation to the goods.

Prevent unauthorized use of the GI name, especially if it is likely to mislead consumers about the origin.

Take legal action for infringement, including injunctions and damages.

Key Provisions:

Section 21: Grants exclusive right to use the GI to registered proprietors and authorized users.

Section 22: Defines infringement, including use of a GI in a misleading manner or without authorization.

Limitations:

GI registration protects the name or indication of origin, not necessarily the design or shape of the product.

Enforcement is territorial, meaning foreign companies need separate protection in their countries.

3. Case Law and Legal Controversy

Case 1: Prada Controversy (2025)

Facts:

Italian luxury brand Prada showcased leather sandals resembling Kolhapuri chappals at an international fashion show.

Indian artisans and legal activists filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court, alleging that Prada had violated the GI rights of Kolhapuri chappals.

Court Decision:

The PIL was dismissed, with the court ruling that only registered GI proprietors or authorized users have the standing to file a GI infringement suit.

The court noted that similarity of design alone does not constitute GI infringement unless the GI name is misused or origin is misrepresented.

Significance:

Clarified that GI protection in India requires proper procedural standing.

Reinforced that foreign brands using similar designs without the GI name may not automatically infringe.

Case 2: Traditional Artisan Enforcement

Facts:

A group of Kolhapur artisans discovered a local manufacturer selling sandals marketed as “Kolhapuri chappals” outside the GI region.

Outcome:

The registered GI proprietors filed a suit under Section 22.

Court granted injunction against the manufacturer for misleading consumers and violating the GI registration.

Significance:

Confirms that GI enforcement protects authentic regional producers.

Misrepresentation of origin is actionable, even in domestic markets.

Case 3: Comparison with Other GI Disputes

Similar GI enforcement principles have been applied to Darjeeling tea and Scotch whisky.

In all cases, courts focus on:

Use of the GI name

Likelihood of misleading consumers

Authority of the plaintiff (registered proprietors)

Significance:

Establishes that GI enforcement is not just about design similarity but about origin and authenticity.

Case 4: Enforcement of GI Rights by Local Corporations

Facts:

The Maharashtra and Karnataka GI boards (LIDCOM and LIDKAR) monitored online and retail sales of Kolhapuri chappals.

They took action against sellers using the GI name without authorization.

Outcome:

Courts consistently upheld exclusive rights of GI holders and issued injunctions and fines.

Significance:

Demonstrates proactive enforcement by GI proprietors.

4. Key Legal Principles

Principle	Explanation	Example
Exclusive Right to GI	Only registered proprietors/authorized users can use the GI name	LIDCOM/LIDKAR actions against unauthorized sellers
Misrepresentation of Origin	Selling non-authentic products as GI goods is infringement	Local manufacturers marketing sandals as “Kolhapuri chappals”
Standing in Court	Only GI proprietors/authorized users can sue for infringement	Prada PIL dismissal case
Design vs. Name	GI protects name/indication of origin, not design alone	Prada case shows design similarity ≠ automatic GI violation
Domestic and Export Control	GI holders can enforce rights within India; foreign protection requires separate registration	Artisan actions against non-local sellers