The Bombay High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought to restrain luxury fashion brand PRADA from selling "Toe Ring Sandals", which were alleged to be deceptively similar to the traditional and GI-tagged Kolhapuri Chappals. The court made it clear that such issues cannot be addressed through a PIL and that the registered proprietors of the GI must take appropriate legal steps if they believe their rights have been infringed.
The case was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne on July 16, 2025. The PIL was filed by six advocates led by Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire, who argued that PRADA’s sandals were inspired by the traditional Kolhapuri footwear and amounted to a violation of the Geographical Indications (GI) of Goods Act, 1999.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Rules SEBI Must Follow RTI Section 11 Before Disclosing Third-Party Information
“Both the registered proprietors are well equipped to protect their rights… An action which can be brought by way of a suit by a registered proprietor of GI cannot be permitted to be agitated through a PIL.” — Bombay High Court
Background of the Petition
Kolhapuri Chappals are traditional Indian leather sandals known for their intricate craftsmanship and have been granted GI protection since May 4, 2009. The rights for this GI tag belong to Sant. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR), corporations under the governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka, respectively.
The PIL alleged that PRADA introduced sandals resembling Kolhapuri Chappals during its Spring/Summer Men’s Collection event held in Milan on June 22, 2025. The petitioners claimed that PRADA did not acknowledge any inspiration from the Indian footwear and priced the sandals at over ₹1,00,000.
The petitioners demanded a court order to:
- Restrain PRADA from selling the sandals.
- Issue a public apology.
- Compensate artisans for economic and reputational loss.
- Initiate government-led investigation and regulation to protect GI products.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Quashes GST Order for Lack of Independent Reasoning, Cites Violation of Natural Justice
PRADA’s Response
PRADA, represented by Senior Counsel Ravi Kadam, opposed the PIL, arguing that only the registered GI proprietors had the legal standing to bring an infringement claim. It was emphasized that PRADA had not been directly sued by the rightful GI holders, and thus, the PIL was not maintainable.
“Violation of statutory rights cannot be agitated by Petitioners in a PIL.” — Senior Counsel for PRADA
Court’s Observations
The court underlined several legal principles and precedents:
- According to Section 21 and Section 22 of the GI Act, the right to take legal action lies solely with the registered proprietors.
- There was no evidence that the GI holders (LIDCOM and LIDKAR) were unable to protect their rights or were incapable of filing suit themselves.
- The petition involved disputed questions of fact, such as product similarity and alleged infringement, which require evidence and cannot be resolved under Article 226 of the Constitution via a PIL.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court: Insurance Payout for Dead Horses Is Capital Receipt, Not Taxable Business Income
The court also referred to Supreme Court rulings that restrict the misuse of PILs, warning against their use for personal or non-public motives.
“When controversy can be adjudicated under a statute, parties should be relegated to appropriate forums instead of entertaining the writ petition filed as Public Interest Litigation.” — Bombay High Court
The High Court dismissed the PIL, stating that the registered GI proprietors are entitled to take legal recourse against PRADA if they believe their rights are being violated.
Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire & Others vs. PRADA Group & Others (PIL No. 72 of 2025)