In June of the previous year, Prada presented sandals at a Milan fashion show that were nearly identical to traditional Indian Kolhapuri chappals, priced at US$1,200, without acknowledging their origins, according to Ivey Publishing. The incident involving Prada's sandals underscored the financial exploitation and lack of recognition often inherent in luxury brands' cultural appropriation.
Luxury brands are increasingly called out for cultural appropriation, yet they continue to release designs closely resembling traditional cultural artifacts without proper acknowledgment or compensation. This tension creates a cycle where creative inspiration blurs with economic exploitation, often at the expense of original cultural producers.
While public pressure can force brands into conciliatory gestures, the underlying issue of intellectual property rights for traditional designs remains largely unaddressed. This suggests a persistent cycle of appropriation and reactive appeasement.
Defining Cultural Appropriation in Fashion
Dior faced accusations of cultural appropriation for its Cruise 2019 campaign, featuring a white actress and referencing Mexican culture, as reported by BBC. This incident, alongside Isabel Marant's alleged plagiarism of traditional Mexican costume in 2015, illustrates a clear pattern. Cultural appropriation involves the adoption of minority culture elements by a dominant culture without proper understanding, respect, or acknowledgment, often for commercial gain.
This process strips cultural artifacts of their original context and meaning. The dominant culture rebrands these elements as novel, profiting while original creators receive neither credit nor equitable compensation. Such actions diminish the cultural significance of traditional designs, highlighting a deeper issue of systemic disrespect.
The Kolhapuri Chappal Case: A Detailed Look
Prada released open-toe braided leather sandals nearly identical to traditional Indian Kolhapuri chappals, according to Ivey Publishing. While Ivey Publishing cited a price of US$1,200, The IP Press reported a price of approximately 1.2 Lakh Rupees (about $800) for similar sandals in Prada's Spring/Summer 2026 collection. This pricing discrepancy for what appears to be the same or similar appropriated design suggests either distinct collections, inconsistent reporting, or a fluid pricing strategy by luxury brands when navigating controversial items.
The striking similarity and exorbitant price of Prada's sandals, compared to their traditional counterparts, exemplify the commercial exploitation at the heart of appropriation. This practice allows luxury brands to capitalize on established cultural aesthetics without acknowledging the labor or heritage behind them, effectively commodifying a rich tradition.
A Pattern of Missteps: Other Notable Incidents
Gucci faced backlash for using white models in Sikh-style turbans in 2016, according to BBC. In 2017, Vogue was criticized for a shoot depicting model Karlie Kloss as a geisha. These varied incidents expose a systemic issue within the fashion industry: cultural elements are routinely commodified without genuine appreciation or ethical engagement.
The recurring pattern of appropriation across major luxury brands, despite public backlash and existing intellectual property protections, suggests a calculated risk-reward strategy. Financial gains from appropriation often outweigh the reputational costs of temporary controversy and superficial reconciliation, perpetuating a cycle of cultural disregard.
Protecting Cultural Heritage: The Role of GI Tags
The Kolhapuri chappal received a Geographical Indication (GI) tag in July 2019, according to The IP Press. The toe-ring Kolhapuri chappal has been protected under the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act (GI Act) since 2009. GI tags offer a legal framework to protect the unique identity and economic value of traditional crafts, affirming the importance of recognizing their origins.
Yet, despite these legal protections for traditional designs like Kolhapuri chappals, luxury brands like Prada continue to appropriate them. The continued appropriation by luxury brands like Prada reveals a systemic disregard for existing intellectual property frameworks, rather than mere ignorance within the industry. Such actions undermine the very purpose of these protective measures, challenging the efficacy of current legal safeguards.
Moving Forward: Beyond Apologies
Nearly a year after facing criticism, Prada launched a limited-edition line of sandals inspired by traditional Kolhapuri sandals, as reported by BBC. Simultaneously, Prada announced a three-year training program for 180 artisans from eight Indian districts. While seemingly benevolent, these initiatives serve as strategic distractions, allowing the brand to appear responsive without addressing the core issue of intellectual property theft and equitable compensation for the original creators of the GI-tagged Kolhapuri chappal.
Luxury brands effectively monetize cultural heritage twice: first by selling appropriated designs at exorbitant prices, like Prada's US$1,200 sandals. They then leverage subsequent controversy to launch 'limited-edition' lines or 'training programs' that generate positive PR, without truly compensating or empowering the original communities. This dual monetization strategy exposes a commercial exploitation of both the culture and the backlash.
The repeated instances of cultural appropriation by major luxury brands, despite public outcry, reveal a systemic failure within the industry to respect cultural heritage. This 'apologize and move on' cycle appears to be a calculated business strategy rather than a genuine commitment to ethical sourcing and design. For true progress, systemic changes are imperative in how luxury brands engage with and compensate creators of traditional designs. By Q3 2026, luxury brands like Prada must fundamentally re-evaluate their sourcing and design ethics to avoid continued criticism and potential legal challenges over cultural IP rights.
