Mr. Willy Chavarría, a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent, is a prominent fashion designer who was named “Menswear Designer of the Year” in 2023 by the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA). This distinction is significant, as the CFDA—established in 1962—comprises the leading designers of apparel, jewelry, and accessories in the United States.
Chavarría has garnered attention for his bold, culturally resonant designs, often inspired by “Chicano” aesthetics—an expression of the Mexican-American identity in the U.S., which he personally embodies. However, his most recent “creation” represents not innovation, but rather a clear act of cultural appropriation: the unauthorized use of elements from the Indigenous communities of Oaxaca, Mexico.
The product in question, the “Oaxaca Slip-On,” was officially unveiled on August 4, 2025, at the Museum of Art of Puerto Rico. Chavarría shared an image of the footwear, a contemporary reinterpretation of traditional huaraches—flat, woven leather sandals commonly made from long leather strips and a matching sole, sometimes rubber. His version features a thick athletic-style sole, seemingly aimed at giving it a modern twist.
The design directly replicates traditional footwear from Zapotec Indigenous communities in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca, particularly from Villa Hidalgo Yalálag. This is not merely a matter of interpretation or debate—Chavarría himself has publicly admitted to missteps.
According to multiple news outlets, the designer acknowledged that the release “did not reflect the level of respect and collaborative engagement that the community of Villa Hidalgo Yalálag deserves.” He added, “I deeply regret that this design appropriated the name and was not developed through direct and meaningful collaboration with the Oaxacan community.”
However, his apology stops short of addressing the core issue: the appropriation of a collective Indigenous cultural heritage. Chavarría apologizes for using the name “Oaxaca” and for the lack of collaboration, suggesting that a different name or token collaboration might have been enough to justify the act.
This avoidance of the fundamental issue may stem from concerns over potential legal consequences—or perhaps from a genuine lack of understanding of what’s at stake. Regardless, such public apologies do not resolve the deeper ethical and legal concerns.
For its part, Adidas—through its legal director in Mexico—sent a letter to the governor of Oaxaca, Salomón Jara, requesting a meeting to “explore steps toward reparation for the harm caused to the Zapotec community of Villa Hidalgo Yalálag” and to build a constructive and respectful relationship.
While this move acknowledges the existence of harm, it fails to directly confront the company’s act of misappropriation. In contrast, Mexican authorities have been more forthright. The governor of Oaxaca demanded the immediate removal of the product from the market, reparations to the affected community, and public recognition of the design’s origins, stating: “Culture is not for sale—it must be respected.”
President Claudia Sheinbaum, during a morning press conference, also expressed her disapproval, emphasizing that what is at stake is collective intellectual property. She reaffirmed that the matter falls under Mexican law and must be addressed through negotiation or, if necessary, legal action.
The relevant legal framework is the Federal Law for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities, updated in November 2023. This legislation clearly defines and protects the collective cultural and intellectual property of these communities.
Article 1 establishes the law as a matter of public order and social interest, with the objective of “recognizing and guaranteeing the protection, safeguarding, and development of the cultural heritage and collective intellectual property of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples and communities.”
Article 2 (section VI) mandates the establishment of penalties for the misappropriation, use, exploitation, commercialization, or reproduction of cultural heritage, knowledge, or traditional cultural expressions, when such actions are taken without free, prior, and informed consent from the communities concerned.
Article 3 (section XII) defines cultural heritage as:
“The set of tangible and intangible assets including languages, knowledge, objects, and all elements constituting the cultures and territories of Indigenous and Afro-Mexican peoples and communities, which provide them with a sense of community and distinct identity, and which are recognized by others as characteristic.”
Under Article 8, the use of such heritage is exclusively reserved for the originating peoples or communities—unless they have explicitly granted their free, prior, and informed consent, in line with the General Law on Consultation for Indigenous and Afro-Mexican Peoples and Communities.
The law further defines “misappropriation” as:
“The act by which a national or foreign individual or entity appropriates, for themselves or a third party, one or more elements of cultural heritage without the consent required by this law.”
While a full analysis of this law exceeds the scope of this article, two key points merit attention.
First, as the law stipulates, international instruments such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples also apply. Article 31 of the Declaration asserts:
“Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions… and intellectual property over such heritage.”
Second, given the extensive legal frameworks—both national and international—it is difficult to believe that a global corporation like Adidas would not have exercised the due diligence necessary to verify the legal and ethical viability of their product before launching it.
Moreover, this is far from an isolated incident. For decades, similar acts of cultural appropriation have occurred across the globe.
On November 2, 2023, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) convened the first High-Level Dialogue on Indigenous Peoples, Traditional Cultural Expressions, and Fashion at its Geneva headquarters. The event brought together Indigenous representatives and fashion industry stakeholders—including the International Trademark Association, H&M (Sweden), MF Brands Group (Switzerland), and the Gromek Institute for Fashion Business.
The event presented early findings from a draft document titled:
“Steps to Consider When Using Traditional Cultural Expressions of Indigenous Peoples in Fashion.”
Though still in development, the draft recommends six steps fashion companies should follow when engaging Indigenous communities on the use of their traditional expressions. These steps apply whether the collaboration involves direct use, adaptation, or co-creation with Indigenous artisans.
Importantly, the draft emphasizes that:
“Sharing benefits means ensuring Indigenous Peoples receive a fair and equitable share of the benefits derived from the use of their cultural expressions.”
It stands to reason that Adidas and its legal advisors were aware—or should have been aware—of these international developments.
Thus, one possible interpretation is that the company knowingly proceeded with the launch, calculating that either no objections would be raised or, even if challenged, the potential profits would outweigh any future costs related to compensation or reputational harm.
What remains to be seen is whether this controversy will lead to stronger, enforceable protections for the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples in Mexico—and, hopefully, around the world.