Birkenstock sandals are a summer fashion favorite, known for their comfort and durability. The German business, which has been making footwear since 1774, has battled to have its sandals classified as works of applied art, but Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled against the brand, stating that the shoes are simply functional footwear.
The company had taken legal action against three competitors, accusing them of copying its signature design. Birkenstock claimed that its sandals deserved copyright protection, which would prevent rivals from making similar versions. Under German law, artistic works receive stronger intellectual property rights than consumer goods.
The dispute was initially brought before a regional court in Cologne, which sided with Birkenstock, the court acknowledged that the sandals could be classified as works of applied art and issued an order against the competing brands. This ruling, however, was overturned by Cologne’s higher regional court on appeal.
The appeals court found that the sandals did not meet the artistic threshold required for copyright protection, and ruled that their design was dictated by practical considerations rather than creative expression. The case was then taken to Germany’s highest civil court for a final decision.
On Thursday, the Federal Court of Justice upheld the appeals court’s ruling, the judges determined that Birkenstock’s design did not exhibit enough individuality to qualify for copyright protection. The court emphasized that products shaped by technical requirements or functional needs cannot be copyrighted as artistic works.
“For copyright protection, a level of design must be achieved that reveals individuality,” the ruling stated. Since Birkenstock’s sandals prioritize comfort and functionality, they do not qualify for artistic recognition.
What This Means for the Footwear Industry
The ruling is a setback for Birkenstock, but a win for competitors who produce similar designs. It ensures that rival brands can continue to manufacture comparable sandals without the fear of legal consequences. This decision highlights the challenges of claiming copyright protection for functional products in the fashion industry.
Despite the judicial setback, Birkenstock remains a prominent force in the global footwear industry, the brand maintains global popularity, demonstrating that even without copyright protection, its sandals remain a timeless classic.
What’s your take on this ruling? Should functional fashion be considered art? Share your thoughts in the comments here!
