The Bombay High Court Wednesday Dismissed A Public Interest Litign (Pil) By Six Pune-Based Lawyers Seeking Action Against Italian Luxury Brand Prada for allega for allegly showcasing footwear Its Spring-Summer 2026 Menswear Collection.
A division bench of choice justice alk arhadhe and justice sandeep v marne was hearing a pil, which kolhapuri chappal was already protected as a geographical indication (gi) of the GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS. GOODS (Registration and Protection) Act and is a “Cultural Symbol” of Maharastra.
The court asked the petitioners what their “Locus standi” was, and what the “public interest” was. It also asked them the sant rohidas leather industries and charmakar development corporation ltd. (Lidcom) of Maharastra Government, which was made a responsnd, Could not file the suit.
The petitioners, Among Other Prayers, Saut Direction Restraining Prada from Commercializing and Using the “Toe Ring Sandals”, Claiming That Same Was Originally “Kolhapuri Chappal” And They Cannot Use WITHONE Authorisation availed from the registered proprietor or authorized users.
The plea also sought compression to the artisans’ community for “reputational and economic damages”.
The bench orally questioned petitioners, “You want an injunction in pil? Let (the) affected parties file a suit. Intense, the person with the action with you. It is not the proprietor of Gi Cannot come to Social or Economic Background.
Advocate Ganesh Hingmire for Petitioners Responded That Although They were not owners or proprietors of gui, they had worked for the community to protectual proporty Rights, which infringe. Prada’s action.
Story Continues Below this ad
Senior Advocate Ravi Kadam for Prada Group Conteted the maintenability of the plea, Stating that petitioners lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file it. He argued that the two leater industries or corporations from Maharastra and Karnataka are jointly registered proprietors of the gi and the right to file a little for infringment “Kolha”. Used in relationship to footwear.
After Perusing Submissions, The bench in its order noted that lidcom and dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (Lidkar) of Karnataka Government, Were registered proprietors of gi for kolhapuri chappals and “they can bring an action against any unauthorized user for infringment” Through Undeg Act, ie. Prada unauthorisedly used registered gi.
The HC said that Such an action can be permitted to be agitated through that both the organisms were establed to look after welfare of artisans and “Posses Necessary Where Prada. Dismissing the pil, the HC also said advocation of dispute on the similarity between two products and infringment requiring leding of evident and Same can be under thrugh pil.
The HC clarified that the dismissal should not “Come in the way of registered proprietors of gi in kolhapuri chappal to initiative action against phada in accordance with law, if they so desire”.