The Bombay High Court has declined to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking restraint against Italian luxury brand PRADA for allegedly commercialising sandals resembling the traditional "Kolhapuri Chappals" without authorisation from the registered proprietors of the geographical indication (GI).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that such infringement claims must be pursued by the registered proprietors of the GI under the statutory remedies provided by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, and cannot be brought through a PIL under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition had been filed by six advocates, led by GI expert Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire, alleging that PRADA’s "Toe Ring Sandals", unveiled during its Spring Summer Men’s Collection in Milan, bear a deceptive resemblance to Kolhapuri Chappals, a product protected under GI registration. The petitioners sought a judicial direction to halt the alleged misuse and demanded a public apology, compensation for artisan communities, and formulation of guidelines to prevent unauthorised use of Indian GIs by global brands.
The Court, however, found no basis to entertain the PIL. It observed, "An action which can be brought by way of a suit by registered proprietor of GI cannot be permitted to be agitated through a PIL." The bench clarified that Sant. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR), government-controlled corporations and the registered proprietors of the Kolhapuri GI, were "well equipped to protect their rights flowing from registered GI in Kolhapuri Chappals by bringing action against PRADA, if they believe that PRADA is unauthorisedly using the registered GI."
The Bench also pointed out that LIDKAR, one of the two registered proprietors, had not even been impleaded in the petition.
Addressing the broader question of maintainability, the Court applied the parameters set out in BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Versus. Union of India and cautioned against the misuse of public interest litigation. It held that the grievance raised concerned the statutory rights of specific entities who had the requisite legal capacity and resources to seek redress.
The Court further noted, “The issue of similarity between two products and infringement action involves disputed questions of facts which needs leading of evidence. Thus on this count as well, an infringement action in registered GI cannot be brought by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the PIL but clarified that "Dismissal of the petition shall not come in the way of registered proprietors of GI in Kolhapuri Chappal to initiate action against PRADA in accordance with law, if they so desire."
Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire And Ors. Vs. PRADA Group and Ors.
Case No.: Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2025
Coram: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Advocate for Petitioner: Advs. Ganesh S. Hingmire, Vrushali L. Maindad, and Prasad Sapate
Advocate for Respondent: Sr. Adv. Ravi Kadam, Advs. Hiren Kamod, V. Mohini, Aarti Aggarwal, Karan Khiani, Rohan Lopes, Government Pleader Neha S. Bhide, Additional Government Pleaders O.A. Chandurkar, and G.R. Raghunwanshi
Picture Source :
