German Court Rules Birkenstock Sandals Are Not Art, Rejects Claim Of Copyright (Image:X/BIRKENSTOCKUSA)
Berlin: Germany’s Federal Court of Justice on Thursday ruled that Birkenstock sandals are not considered art, despite the company’s claims.
Birkenstock, the well-known German footwear brand famous for its comfort and distinctive design, a summer staple, as they can range from looking stylish to somewhat scruffy, had filed a lawsuit arguing that its sandals should be protected by copyright laws as works of applied art.
The court, however, disagreed and ruled that the sandals did not meet the criteria for artistic copyright protection.
Birkenstock, which traces its origins back to 1774 and is headquartered in Linz am Rhein, Germany, took legal action against three rival companies that were selling sandals remarkably similar to its own.
The brand’s lawsuit emphasised that its sandals, with their signature wide straps and large buckles, were more than just footwear, they were “copyright-protected works of applied art.”
Also, read| Meet Saba, Mistral’s AI Innovation For Malayalam, Tamil And Arabic Language Users
Birkenstock argued that these designs should not be imitated and that competitors should stop making similar versions, withdraw the existing products from the market, and destroy any remaining stock.
The central issue in the case was whether Birkenstock sandals could be classified as works of art under German intellectual property law.
German law offers stronger protections for works of art, including longer-lasting copyright rights, than for standard consumer products. Birkenstock aimed to prove that its sandals, due to their design and unique appearance, deserved this kind of protection.
However, the German courts took a different view. Before the Federal Court’s final decision, the case had been heard by two lower courts with differing opinions.
The first court, based in Cologne, initially agreed with Birkenstock and recognised the sandals as works of applied art, granting an injunction against the competitors.
Also, read| Lulu Group’s India Expansion: “Nagpur Is One Of Our Priorities,” Says MA Yusuff Ali
But this decision was overturned by a higher regional court, which ruled that the sandals did not demonstrate enough artistic merit to qualify for such protections.
In its final ruling, the Federal Court of Justice sided with the appeals court. The court explained that to qualify for copyright protection as a work of applied art, a product’s design must go beyond simple functionality and reveal a certain level of individuality.
The court further clarified that when a design is largely determined by technical requirements or other constraints, such as the functional nature of a sandal, it cannot be considered a work of art eligible for copyright protection.
(With inputs from CNN)
