Bombay High Court: The present Public Interest Litigation (‘PIL’) was filed by the petitioner and five other advocates against the global fashion giant, PRADA. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to restrain PRADA from commercializing and using ‘toe ring sandals’ alleged to be deceptively similar to Geographical Indication (‘GI’) tagged product ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’ without securing authorisation from the registered proprietor or authorised users. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Sandeep V. Marne*, J., dismissed the PIL, holding that such statutory and proprietary rights under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (the ‘G.I. Act’) must be enforced through appropriate remedy by filing Civil Suit by the registered proprietors themselves, and not through a PIL. The Court emphasised that questions involving an infringement action in registered GI could not be brought by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Background:
The GI product ‘Kolhapuri Chappal’ had been registered under the provisions of the G.I. Act on 4-5-2009, and registration was valid till 2029. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR) had been granted registration in respect of the GI of Kolhapuri Chappals. The petitioner’s alleged that during PRADA’s Spring Summer Men’s Collection at Milan, Italy on 22-6-2025, the brand introduced ‘toe ring sandals’ that bore a striking resemblance to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappals and were reportedly priced at over Rs 1,00,000. It was contended that the specialised human skills and time-intensive process required for each Kolhapuri Chappal and the 800-year-old art form developed in India are being exploited by PRADA, which sought to introduce a deceptively similar product with the ulterior objective of earning unauthorised profits through unauthorised use of the GI of the registered proprietors, violating Section 22 of the G.I. Act.
The petitioner, who also appeared in person as the counsel submitted that the GI registration for Kolhapuri Chappals was secured after a 23-year struggle, in which he played a pivotal role. He alleged that if PRADA was permitted to copy the Kolhapuri Chappal for its own products, it would result in heavy losses to those in the industry of manufacture and sale of Kolhapuri Chappals and destroy its geographical importance. He also referred to Articles 21, 29, 51-A(f) of the Constitution, asserting that the impugned actions violated fundamental rights. The petitioners also emphasised that since the registered proprietors of GI were government agencies/departments, they may not take proactive legal steps, hence the PIL was necessary with a view to protect larger interest of the community.
The counsel appearing for PRADA’s group, contested the maintainability of the PIL, and pointed out that the reliefs sought pertained to breach of statutory right of the petitioners, not matters of wider public interest. He further argued that Sections 21 and 22 of the G.I. Act provided for adequate mechanism for infringement of registered GI, and it is for the registered proprietors to pursue such remedies through civil suits, not by a PIL.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court analysed the provisions of GI Act and concluded that the application for registration of GI under Section 11 of the G.I. Act can be made by Association of persons or producers or any organisation or authority established by or under any law, which represented the interests of producers of the concerned goods. The Court noted that LIDCOM and LIDKAR were the registered proprietors of GI in Kolhapuri Chappals, and Section 21 of the GI Act conferred on LIDCOM and LIDKAR the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement of GI in the manner provided by the Act, therefore, they could bring an action against PRADA for infringement of GI by filing a suit under the provisions of Section 22 of the GI Act.
The Court emphasised that both registered proprietors were well equipped to protect their rights arising from the registered GI in Kolhapuri Chappals by initiating action against PRADA, if they believed that PRADA was using the registered GI without authorisation. It was noted that such an action, which could have been brought by way of a suit by the registered proprietor of the GI, was not permitted to be pursued through a PIL.
The Court further observed that it was not the case of the petitioners that, due to their social or economic background, the registered proprietors were incapable of agitating their rights through statutory remedies, since both were government organisations established for the welfare of leather footwear artisans and possessed the necessary means to act against PRADA if they believed it infringed their proprietary right in the Kolhapur Chappal GI.
The Court relied on Jaipur Shahar Hindu Vikas Samiti v. State of Rajasthan (2014) 5 SCC 520, wherein it was that the Courts should have discouraged unjustified litigants at the initial stage itself, and the person who misused the forum should have been held accountable for it. In the realm of PIL, while protecting the larger public interest involved, the Courts should have also considered effective ways to grant relief to the people whose rights had been adversely affected or were at stake.
The Court reiterated that, since the present PIL was at the instance of the petitioners, it was not inclined to entertain it. The Court, therefore, held that the similarity between products and the infringement action involved disputed questions of fact needing evidence, and such action in registered GI could not be brought under Article 226 of the Constitution. Subsequently, the Court dismissed the PIL and clarified that this would not prevent the registered proprietors of the GI in Kolhapuri Chappal from initiating legal action against PRADA in accordance with the law.
[Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire v. PRADA Group, Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2025, decided on 16-7-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Ganesh S. Hingmire with Vrushali L. Maindad and Prasad Sapate
For the Respondents: Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Hiren Kamod, V. Mohini, Aarti Aggarwal, Karan Khiani and Rohan Lopes, Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and G.R. Raghunwanshi, AGP.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
