A German federal court recently decided that Birkenstocks cannot be considered art, since they are just comfortable, popular footwear made of cork.
After years of litigation, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice dismissed the intellectual property case against Birkenstock, which is especially known for its Arizona sandal, featuring wide-straps and large buckles. The court’s ruling stated that a product can not be copyrighted if “technical requirements, rules or other constraints determine the design.”
Birkenstock, which is headquartered in Linz am Rhein in western Germany, filed a lawsuit against three competitors, arguing that they sold similar styles of sandals to four signature models. These models, Birkenstock said, are “copyright-protected works of applied art” that could not be copied.
Under German law, works of fine art are granted stronger intellectual property protections compared to the design or “applied art” of consumer products.
The lawyers representing Birkenstock argued that German copyright law gave the sandal’s creators exclusive rights of use, just as they would for any artist or creator of literary works, computer programs, or paintings. Other consumer items granted this similar level of copyright protection include furniture by the Swiss-French artist Le Corbusier and lighting designed by the Bauhaus art movement, according to reporting from the Guardian.
Birkenstock asked the German federal court for an injunction that would stop its competitors from producing similar-looking sandals and force them to recall and destroy pairs already for sale. ABC News said the court statement did not specify the three competitors.
Prior to the civil court’s decision on February 20, Birkenstock’s intellectual property lawsuit had already been heard at two lower courts in Germany. While a regional court in Cologne initially recognized four of Birkenstock’s shoe models as works of applied art and granted the company’s orders in 2017, a higher regional court in the city later overturned the orders on appeal in 2022. The latter court said it could not establish any artistic achievement for the company.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice ultimately sided with Cologne’s higher regional court.
