Beyond Prada’s Footprint: A Game Theory Analysis of Global Brands and India’s Vulnerable GIs

The recent “Kolhapuri Chappal” controversy involving Prada has once again cast a harsh spotlight on a persistent and critical issue for developing nations like India: the misappropriation of Geographical Indication (GI) tags by global corporations. This isn’t merely about a luxury brand’s oversight; it’s a complex game of intellectual property, cultural heritage, and economic power, where local artisans often find themselves in a losing battle against well-resourced international players.

The Prada Play: A Microcosm of a Macro Problem

Prada recently showcased open-toe leather sandals at Milan Fashion Week for its Spring/Summer 2026 Men’s collection, strikingly similar to the traditional Kolhapuri Chappal. These sandals were reportedly priced over ₹1 lakh (approximately $1,200), a stark contrast to the authentic Kolhapuri chappals sold by local artisans for as little as ₹400 (around $5). 

The controversy was ignited over Prada’s lack of acknowledgement of the design’s Indian connection. After facing widespread social media backlash, Prada did accept that the  design was inspired. But it was done so privately and not in the form of a public apology or in front of the GI registry or artisans. 

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has now been filed in the Bombay High Court, seeking a permanent injunction, a public apology, and compensation for the artisans. Although this incident has brought a surge in the sales and support of authentic Kolhapuri chappals driven by social media buzz and nationalist sentiments. In this conflict, we have: 

• The Original Creators (Artisans): Invest countless hours, generations of inherited skill, and embody the cultural heritage. They hold the GI tag, which legally protects their product’s unique origin and characteristics in India. Their payoff is often meager, struggling with declining demand and lack of market access.
• The Global Corporation (Prada): Possesses immense financial capital, global marketing reach, and brand prestige. Their strategy involves “inspiration” or “cultural appropriation” to create high-value products, leveraging existing traditional knowledge without direct credit or equitable benefit-sharing. Their payoff is significant profit and enhanced brand image.
• The Indian State/GI Registry: The custodian of GI tags, tasked with protecting these traditional crafts. Their challenge lies in effective enforcement, especially internationally, and empowering the actual producers.

The Game Theory Lens: A Battle of Asymmetric Information and Power

Since such instances are a repeated happening, we can view this scenario as a continuous game with asymmetric information and significant power imbalances. The game consists of the following players: 

1. Indian GI Holders/Artisans: Primarily the vulnerable producers.
2. Indian Government/GI Registry/Legal System: The enforcer and advocate.
3. Global Corporations: The potential appropriators.
4. Consumers: The ultimate market.

The Payoff Matrix

Consider a simplified interaction between a Global Corporation (GC) and Indian GI Holders (IGH), supported by the Indian Legal System (ILS).

	GC Strategy: Appropriate (No Credit/Compensation)	GC Strategy: Collaborate (Credit/Benefit-Share)
IGH/ILS Strategy: Litigate/Fight	GC: High Legal Cost, Reputational Damage;  IGH/ILS: High Legal Cost, Potential Recognition	GC: Reduced Legal Cost, Positive PR;  IGH/ILS: Some Legal Cost, Potential Collaboration & Benefit
IGH/ILS Strategy: Do Nothing/Ignore	GC: High Profit, No Cost, Enhanced Brand (if unnoticed);  IGH/ILS: Erosion of GI, Cultural Loss, Economic Disadvantage	GC: Reduced Profit (due to collaboration);  IGH/ILS: Potential Benefit, Recognition (if collaboration happens)

Let us analyze the Dominant Strategies and Nash Equilibrium in detail:

Global Corporation’s Perspective:

• In the short term, without strong enforcement: The dominant strategy for a global corporation is often to “Appropriate without credit/compensation.” The potential payoff (high profit, market capture) far outweighs the perceived risk of legal repercussions or reputational damage, especially if the GI protection is weak internationally or the local producers lack the means to fight. The cost of “doing nothing” is zero, while the cost of “collaborating” might eat into profits.

• If a strong backlash or legal precedent emerges: If consumers or legal systems punish appropriation severely (e.g., through boycotts, massive fines, or injunctions), the GC’s dominant strategy might shift towards “Collaborate.” Prada’s partial acknowledgment came only after significant social media pressure, indicating that reputational risk can influence corporate behavior.

Indian GI Holders/Legal System’s Perspective:

• Given limited resources: The default strategy for individual artisans is often “Do Nothing/Ignore.” The high cost of litigation, lack of awareness, and perceived power imbalance make legal recourse seem futile. 

• With state support/collective action: When backed by the government, NGOs, or strong legal counsel (like in the Kolhapuri case), the strategy can shift to “Litigate/Fight.” The payoff here isn’t necessarily immediate financial gain, but establishing a legal precedent, raising awareness, and protecting cultural heritage for future generations.

In case of weak enforcement, the Nash Equilibrium is unfavorable to GI holders. In most cases when the global corporations are found to be appropriating, the IGH/ILS has to do nothing but endure, mainly because it lacks necessary resources and/or effective international mechanisms. As a result, the cultural heritage is left vulnerable for easy exploitation and genuine producers stay marginalized. 

Beyond Prada: Systemic Challenges and Past Battles

This is not the first time a global corporation is found guilty of India’s GI tag misappropriation. India has a rich tapestry of traditional crafts and agricultural products but the country has always struggled to protect its GUs on the global stage. Here are some notable Case Studies:

Basmati Rice

One of India’s most iconic GI battles involved the US company RiceTec, which attempted to patent certain rice strains as “Basmati.” India and Pakistan jointly fought this, eventually leading to the nullification of parts of the patent and the EU granting GI status to Basmati rice, recognizing its origins in the Indian subcontinent. This case highlighted the need for collective action and persistent legal intervention.

Neem and Turmeric 

Earlier instances involved the patenting of traditional Indian medicinal knowledge (e.g., turmeric’s wound-healing properties, neem’s antifungal properties) by foreign entities. India successfully challenged and revoked these patents, demonstrating the power of documenting traditional knowledge. 

Darjeeling Tea

Despite being the first Indian product to receive a GI tag, Darjeeling Tea has faced continuous challenges, with foreign firms marketing tea blends as “Darjeeling” without sourcing from the region. While efforts have been made, enforcement remains uneven. 

If India has a history of successfully defending against cultural misappropriation, then why do the problems still persist? 

1. Territoriality of GI Rights: GI rights are mainly territorial. A GI tag in India can’t give global protection. This means India must seek bilateral or multilateral recognition or register its GIs in foreign jurisdictions, which is quite a costly and complex endeavor. 
2. Lack of Awareness and Resources: Many local artisans and producers don’t know anything about GI laws, their rights, or how to leverage them commercially. They also lack the financial means to initiate civil proceedings against large corporations. 
3. Weak Enforcement and Monitoring: Despite the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, a lack of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms at the grassroots level leaves producers vulnerable.
4. Defining “Producer”: The definition of producer in the GI Act is very ambiguous, giving more benefits to intermediaries than actual artisans. 
5. Global Disparity in GI Registrations: India lags significantly in GI registrations compared to countries like Germany and China, indicating an underutilization of this protection mechanism. 

Towards a More Equitable Game: Policy Prescriptions

It becomes necessary for Indian GI holders to adopt a multi-pronged approach to shift the game theory equilibrium in their favor. 

1. Proactive International Registration: India must aggressively pursue GI registration for its prominent products in key international markets, especially those with strong GI protection regimes like the EU.
2. Stronger Legal Framework and Enforcement: Amending the GI Act to include better enforcement provisions, clear penalties, and government-led monitoring is crucial. Empowering local bodies and providing legal aid to artisan communities can enable them to assert their rights.
3. Enhanced Awareness and Capacity Building: Educating producers about the benefits of GI tags, registration processes, and enforcement mechanisms is of utmost importance. Support for branding, marketing, and direct export facilitation is also required.
4. Bilateral and Multilateral Advocacy: India must continue to push for stronger GI protection clauses in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and advocate for a robust multilateral treaty on GI protection through the WTO or WIPO.
5. Leveraging Soft Power: Showcasing GI products through diplomatic channels, international fairs, and tourism campaigns can enhance their global reputation and market value, making misappropriation harder to justify.

The Kolhapuri Chappal episode, while initially a moment of frustration, has also served as a powerful reminder of the untapped potential and the persistent vulnerabilities of India’s cultural and intellectual heritage. For genuine producers to thrive, the current asymmetric game must evolve into one where global corporations, the state, and artisans can genuinely collaborate, ensuring that “inspiration” leads to shared prosperity, not exploitation.