Crafting controversy: Rethinking protection for India’s arts

As global luxury brands turn to Indian heritage crafts for inspiration, questions mount over fair collaboration, legal protection, and the future of traditional artisans.

When Italian luxury fashion house Prada unveiled T-strapped leather flats at its Spring-Summer 2026 menswear show in Milan, the design’s resemblance to Kolhapuri chappals ignited a wave of criticism in India over cultural appropriation and the misuse of traditional crafts. 

The debate deepened when reports emerged that the brand was eyeing another Maharashtrian heritage product: Hupari’s silver anklets, famed for their intricate filigree and protected under the Geographical Indications law. 

The two episodes have brought renewed attention to how global fashion houses engage with indigenous artisans, raising urgent questions about cultural ownership, fair benefit-sharing, and the limits of legal protection for traditional crafts.

India is home to a rich tapestry of such heritage products, from jewellery, perfumes, clothes and furniture to accessories, food and spirits. These crafts are deeply rooted in tradition, aesthetic sensibility and artisanal skill, often tied to a specific locality whose name has become inseparable from the product itself.

Darjeeling tea, Kolhapur footwear, Mysore silk sarees and Kanchipuram silk sarees are just a few examples. While they may be available in markets far from their origin, their identity — and often their value — is inextricably linked to the place from which they come.

The aforementioned goods, among others, are registered and protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter the GI Act). The GI Act grants associations that produce these products the right to prevent other producers from using their name, thereby preserving market exclusivity and preventing misuse by unauthorised persons within India.

GI is a market right granted to manufacturers. It allows them to profit from the reputation of the product. However, GI registration does not automatically create a market or guarantee economic returns. It is simply one of the tools available to monetise a product.

The GI Act forms part of the broader framework of intellectual property laws but differs in its mode of protection.

Unlike the Copyright Act or the Patent Act, it does not protect the underlying creation; that is, the work itself does not receive protection. Instead, like trademark law, it safeguards the name of the product.

The rights of artisans 

GI is a collective right vested in an association representing its manufacturers, which works to protect its name. The effectiveness of this right depends heavily on the organisational capacity and the financial and legal resources of the association to pursue infringers.

Shortly after the global uproar, a Prada team visited Maharashtra to explore a possible collaboration with artisans in Kolhapur. For the artisans, the prospect of working with such an iconic brand might seem promising, but it must be planned carefully to ensure meaningful protection for their craft.

Similarly, Hupari, a small enclave about twenty kilometres from Kolhapur, is known as the ‘Silver City of India’. It is home to thousands of artisans and more than a hundred small factories, with livelihoods closely tied to silverware production.

Prada’s interest in Hupari anklets could benefit the local craft industry by generating international demand, restoring pride and creating much-needed economic opportunities for the artisan community in the region.

Such a partnership could take Hupari’s intricate filigree work from its local markets to global runways, offering visibility and premium positioning that may be unattainable through domestic sales alone.

A tie-up with Prada could also help address long-standing challenges such as poor infrastructure, limited investment and the need for design innovation in line with global trends. Yet beneath the optimism lies a persistent question: Are such partnerships genuine steps toward empowering Indian craftspeople, or do they merely enrich global giants while leaving local artisans with little real protection?

To answer this, it is important to understand the rights available to Hupari’s artisans. The centuries-old Kolhapuri footwear design is also protected under the GI Act. 

While the allegations of inspiration or appropriation may have had merit, they do not hold firm legal ground under the GI Act. 

The GI law prohibits third-party manufacturers from creating a false link between a product and its original location. Its core purpose is to protect the name, not the product itself. Under current law, no one can prevent another individual or business from practising an age-old craft or selling items that resemble GI-protected products, provided the protected name is not used.

For example, a seller can market Hupari-style silver anklets without calling them ‘Hupari anklets’ in India or elsewhere. 

Furthermore, like most intellectual property rights, GI protection is territorial. A GI registered in India is valid only within India. Indian law does not provide extraterritorial protection. If a foreign brand sells a product protected under Indian GI law in another country, the artisans cannot rely on Indian law. They would need to seek separate GI registrations abroad. This means that, currently, the Hupari silver products do not enjoy any GI/IP protection beyond India. 

However, there is an international system in place to file GI applications in foreign jurisdictions through the Lisbon agreement. The agreement facilitates the filing of GI applications through registration in the home country.

However, India is currently not a member of this agreement. As a result, Indian GI owners will have to file GI applications separately in foreign jurisdictions. For many producer associations, this may not be feasible.

The practicalities  

In practice, intellectual property rights are enforced mainly through contracts. Any benefit-sharing arrangement between Prada and Hupari artisans would depend on the contractual terms agreed upon. 

Many of the silver artisans may lack experience in negotiating contracts involving royalties from sales. If a Prada-Hupari partnership is executed without genuine shared decision-making and fair economic benefits, it risks disproportionately favouring Prada or other luxury brands over the artisans.

Under current law, the artisans may have no valid legal claim to protect their interests. Such arrangements can also become extractive, with the brand exploiting cultural capital and artisanal skill while retaining control over design, marketing and profits. The absence of shared power in such collaborations also threatens the authenticity of artisan crafts. This can undermine artisans’ creative freedom, cultural expression and ownership of their work. When brands dominate decision-making, artisans may be reduced to the role of mere producers. 

Market-driven designs can displace traditional techniques and the symbolic meanings embedded in the craft, diluting cultural nuance. Poor communication of rights, vague design briefs and lack of mutual respect can further result in products that fail to reflect the true value of the craft, reducing it to a superficial aesthetic rather than preserving its intangible heritage.

In the long run, the government should ensure that it is undertaking programmes to spread awareness about GI and other intellectual property laws to safeguard both the art and the artisans.

In the wake of Indian artistic products gaining global interest, it is also time that India considers signing international treaties, like the Lisbon agreement, to facilitate the easier filing of GI beyond the borders of India. 

It is also crucial that any Prada-Hupari collaboration be built on transparent, legally binding mechanisms for shared governance and economic returns. This is essential to avoid perpetuating inequalities and to truly uplift the Hupari community.

(Sundar Athreya H is assistant professor at the KIIT School of Law, and Abhilasha Rathore is a senior associate at Mettle Legal)