Sole searching: Who represents Kolhapuri slippers? Turf war breaks out

A turf war has broken out over the authority to represent the Geographical Indication (GI)-tagged Kolhapuri slippers, amid the Prada spotlight. While one party has proposed collaboration with the Italian luxury fashion house, the other has threatened legal action and demanded damages.

After showcasing a Kolhapuri-inspired sandal without acknowledging the source, Prada later admitted its oversight. It discussed the matter with the Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Agriculture (MACCIA) and later, sent its supply chain team to India to explore a potential collaboration with local artisans.

However, the Karnataka government-backed Dr Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation (LIDKAR) approached the corporation’s legal adviser to take action against MACCIA, accusing it of overstepping its authority in dealing with Prada, according to a copy of the letter seen by ET. A legal notice will be sent on Monday to the trade body, according to a senior official.

Strong Stance

The Karnataka body, on July 1, also served a legal notice to Prada, seeking ?500 crore in damages for GI infringement and ordering the company to “cease and desist” from marketing or selling the sandals. The notice warned that failure to comply would compel LIDKAR to initiate civil and criminal proceedings. ET has seen a copy of the notice.
In its response on July 9, Prada stated it had “not used the term ‘Kolhapuri’ or any associated GI markings in the naming, marketing, or presentation of its footwear.” The company concluded the note by saying it was in discussions with MACCIA and would be “in a better position to respond more substantively following the outcome of the upcoming discussions with the chamber of commerce.”

LIDKAR managing director KM Vasundhara said the body has also issued notice to the chamber “for their unilateral and unauthorised actions concerning the GI rights.” The body’s stance is clear, she said. “Any discussions regarding GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappals must follow the legal framework and cannot be initiated independently by non-statutory bodies like MACCIA. Hence, legal recourse was taken to protect the interests of artisans and uphold GI laws.”

This escalation is the latest in a series of confrontations between the trade chamber and the two GI tag holders— LIDKAR and Maharashtra’s Sant Rohidas Leather Industries & Charmakar Development Corporation (LIDCOM). While MACCIA has taken the lead in engaging with Prada, including facilitating the brand’s India visit, LIDKAR adopted the legal route. The chamber first wrote to Prada on June 25, setting the wheels in motion for the brand’s visit to Kolhapur, where it toured production units and met with footwear artisans.

But three days before MACCIA’s virtual meeting with the international brand on July 11, the Karnataka body issued a notice, demanding it stop all negotiations and asserting MACCIA had “no legal authority to represent, negotiate, or enter any agreement with Prada or any third party concerning Kolhapuri chappals, which are GI-protected under Indian law,” and for the chamber to “refrain from all public and private negotiations, promotional activities, or discussions regarding Kolhapuri chappals,” according to a copy of the letter ET has seen.

In its response on July 12, MACCIA proposed that both GI tag holders be “formally introduced to the international brand as recognised producers and authorised stakeholders of the GI product,” and urged LIDKAR to reconsider its stance and “join hands with MACCIA and the wider artisan community to collectively shape a framework that protects heritage while opening doors to responsible international engagement.”

Prada’s team has toured several local units with MACCIA president Lalit Gandhi—including one operated by LIDCOM—but senior officials from both GI tag holders were notably absent.

Gandhi said the trade body’s goal is “empowerment of artisans and to get the market for Kolhapuri chappals at global level.”

Prada is expected to provide its evaluation report internally and respond to the Maharashtra chamber next week.