Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep V. Marne dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by six advocates seeking judicial intervention against the commercialization and use of alleged lookalikes of 'Kolhapuri Chappals' by an international fashion house. The Court held that the reliefs sought could not be entertained through a PIL petition and that the registered proprietors of the Geographical Indication (GI) in question were competent and equipped to take appropriate statutory action if necessary. The petition was found to be legally untenable on multiple grounds, including questions of maintainability, locus standi, and the requirement of leading evidence, which the PIL mechanism could not accommodate. Accordingly, the High Court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it, stating that the concerned registered proprietors could seek redressal under the appropriate legal framework if they so desired.

The petition was filed under the Civil Appellate Jurisdiction as Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2025. The petitioners comprised six advocates, led by Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire, who also appeared in person. The respondents included an international fashion conglomerate headquartered in Milan; Italy (Respondent No.1), its Indian subsidiary (Respondent No.2), and several government departments and corporations associated with the registration and administration of GI rights in India (Respondents Nos.3 to 5).

Also Read: Supreme Court Rejects Hyatt’s Appeal On India Tax Liability | Says Foreign Entity’s Temporary Indian Base Creates Permanent Establishment

The core issue raised in the petition was the alleged unauthorized use of a Geographical Indication product, namely 'Kolhapuri Chappals,' by Respondent No.1 through the launch and commercialization of 'Toe Ring Sandals.' The petitioners contended that these sandals, showcased at the Spring Summer Men’s Collection event held in Milan on June 22, 2025, bore a striking resemblance to traditional Kolhapuri Chappals, which are GI-tagged products under Indian law.

The petitioners stated that Kolhapuri Chappals had been registered under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, by the Geographical Indications Registry vide Certificate dated May 4, 2009. The registration is valid until 2029. The proprietors of the registered GI are Sant. Rohidas Leather Industries and Charmakar Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDCOM) and Dr. Babu Jagjivan Ram Leather Industries Development Corporation Ltd. (LIDKAR), entities operating under the administrative control of the Governments of Maharashtra and Karnataka respectively.

It was alleged that Respondent No.1 had introduced the impugned footwear product without acknowledging its derivation from Kolhapuri Chappals and without seeking authorization from the GI proprietors or authorized users. The petitioners further stated that the said product was priced at over Rs.1,00,000 and sought to earn commercial gains by misappropriating the cultural and artisanal value of the traditional footwear.

They further alleged that the artisanal process involved in making Kolhapuri Chappals is over 800 years old and includes specialized skills passed down through generations. The petition also expressed concern that such unauthorized commercialization would negatively impact the livelihoods of artisans and dissuade future generations from continuing the craft.

Petitioners submitted that the acts of Respondent No.1 amounted to a violation of Section 22 of the G.I. Act and infringed upon the constitutional rights under Articles 21, 29, 46, and 51A(f) of the Indian Constitution.

The reliefs sought in the petition included:

• A writ restraining Respondent No.1 from using or commercializing the 'Toe Ring Sandals' without authorization.

• A direction for public apology by Respondents Nos.1 and 2 acknowledging the unauthorized use.

• Directions for the State Respondents to investigate the matter.

• Framing of guidelines for international brands seeking to use GI-tagged products.

• Compensation for the artisan community.

• Constitution of a committee for the protection of GI products in international markets.

The petition was opposed by Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate, appearing for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Kadam argued that the PIL lacked maintainability, as the reliefs pertained to infringement of statutory rights of the registered proprietors who were not incapacitated from initiating legal proceedings themselves. He submitted that the GI Act already provides a specific legal framework for enforcement and redressal, including provisions under Sections 21 and 22.

It was further argued that the petitioners had no locus standi and that the PIL lacked any real element of public interest. He pointed out that LIDKAR, one of the registered proprietors, had not even been impleaded as a party to the petition. He also questioned the maintainability of the PIL against private parties like Respondent No.1, who are not instrumentalities of the State.

Government Pleader Mrs. Neha Bhide represented the State Respondents and also made submissions during the proceedings.

The Court observed: "The GI in respect of Kolhapuri Chappals falling in Class-25-Footwear has been registered by the Geographical Indication Registry in the names of LIDCOM and LIDKAR vide registration certificate dated 4 May 2009 under number 169."

The Bench further stated: "Section 21 of the GI Act confers on LIDCOM and LIDKAR the right to obtain relief in respect of infringement of GI in the manner provided by the Act. They can bring an action against unauthorized user for infringement of GI by filing a suit under the provisions of Section 22 of the GI Act."

Stating the self-sufficiency of the registered proprietors, the Court noted: "Both the registered proprietors are government organisations and are apparently established to look after the welfare of artisans involved in leather footwear industry."

The Court stated that it was not convinced that the petition met the necessary criteria for maintainability as a public interest litigation, referencing several precedents including BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India. It stated:

"Where the concerns underlying a petition are not individualist but are shared widely by a large number of people... where the affected persons belong to the disadvantaged sections of society... where judicial intervention is necessary for the protection of the sanctity of democratic institutions..."

"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 Court also noted: "It is not the case of the Petitioners that on account of social or economic background, the registered proprietors are incapable of agitating their own rights by exercising statutory remedies."

Stating the procedural limitations of PILs, the Bench recorded: "Similarity between two products and infringement action involves disputed questions of facts which needs leading of evidence. 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."

The Bench also referred to Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation v. Union of India, reiterating that PILs are meant for "promoting and vindicating public interest which demands that violations of constitutional or legal rights of large numbers of people who are poor, ignorant or in a socially or economically disadvantaged position should not go unnoticed and unredressed."

In conclusion, the Court held: "We are therefore not inclined to entertain the instant PIL the present PIL at the instance of the Petitioners."

Also Read: Penalty Originating From Flawed Inquiry Found Bad In Law | J&K HC Quashes Retrospective Dismissal Of Retired Bank Officer | Orders Full Pensionary Benefits

The Court ultimately dismissed the Public Interest Litigation. It recorded: "We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present PIL at the instance of the Petitioners."

The Court clarified that the dismissal of the petition does not preclude appropriate action by the GI proprietors. It stated: "However, 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."

Accordingly, no reliefs sought in the petition were granted, and the matter was concluded without cost orders.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Ganesh S. Hingmire with Ms. Vrushali L. Maindad and Mr. Prasad Sapate

For the Respondents: Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Hiren Kamod, Ms. V. Mohini, Ms. Aarti Aggarwal, Mr. Karan Khiani and Mr. Rohan Lopes for Respondent No.1
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Additional Government Pleader and Mrs. G.R. Raghunwanshi, AGP for State Respondents Nos.3 and 5

Case Title: Prof. Adv. Ganesh S. Hingmire & Ors. vs. PRADA Group & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-AS:29310-DB

Case Number: Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Sandeep V. Marne