Birkenstocks are a staple in summer wardrobes across the globe, known for their comfort, practicality, and distinctly German design. These iconic sandals have become a cultural phenomenon, with their cousins—wide straps and chunky buckles—being both celebrated and criticized for their unique aesthetic. However, a more profound question about Birkenstocks has recently been debated in Germany’s highest court: Can these sandals be considered works of art? This is the intriguing question that the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) grappled with in a recent ruling, ultimately concluding that Birkenstocks are simply comfortable footwear and not works of art protected by copyright.
The legal battle began when Birkenstock, a company based in Linz am Rhein, Germany, with a shoemaking tradition dating back to 1774, sued three competitors for selling sandals that closely resembled their own designs. Birkenstock argued that its sandals are “copyright-protected works of applied art,” a classification that would grant them stronger and longer-lasting intellectual property protections under German law. The company sought an injunction to stop its competitors from producing the copycat sandals and demanded that the offending products be recalled and destroyed. While the court statement did not name the defendant companies, the case set off a legal and philosophical debate about the boundaries of art and design.
The case had already been through two lower courts before reaching the Federal Court of Justice, with conflicting rulings that highlighted the complexity of the issue. A regional court in Cologne initially sided with Birkenstock, recognizing the sandals as works of applied art and granting the requested injunctions. However, the higher regional court in Cologne overturned this decision on appeal, stating that it could not identify any significant artistic achievement in the design of the wide-strapped, big-buckled sandals. This back-and-forth between the courts reflected the broader debate over how to define and recognize artistic merit in functional products like footwear.
In its final ruling, the Federal Court of Justice sided with the appeals court, dismissing Birkenstock’s case and rejecting the argument that its sandals qualify as works of applied art. The court explained that for a product to be protected by copyright, its design must demonstrate a level of individuality and artistic creativity that goes beyond mere functionality or technical requirements. “A product cannot be copyrighted if its design is determined by technical requirements, rules, or other constraints,” the court wrote in its ruling. It further emphasized that the threshold for copyright protection is high, requiring a level of design that reflects unique artistic expression rather than merely serving a practical purpose. In the case of Birkenstocks, the court determined that the design, while iconic, did not meet this standard.
Birkenstock’s argument hinged on the idea that its sandals are not just functional footwear but also artistic creations that deserve legal protection. The company pointed to the unique combination of design elements, such as the contoured footbed and the distinctive strap and buckle system, as evidence of its artistic achievement. However, the court rejected this reasoning, noting that the design of the sandals is primarily shaped by practical considerations—such as comfort and durability—rather than purely artistic vision. While the court acknowledged the cultural significance and recognizable design of Birkenstocks, it ultimately concluded that these factors alone do not elevate the sandals to the status of copyrighted works of art.
The ruling has important implications for Birkenstock and the wider footwear industry. By denying copyright protection to the sandals, the court has left the door open for competitors to continue producing similar designs, provided they do not infringe on any trademarks or other intellectual property rights. This could potentially impact Birkenstock’s ability to maintain its market position and enforce exclusivity over its iconic designs. At the same time, the decision reinforces the principle that functional products must meet a high threshold to qualify as works of art under copyright law. While the ruling may disappoint Birkenstock enthusiasts who see the sandals as a unique blend of form and function, it also underscores the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between artistic expression and practical design.
In the end, the Federal Court of Justice’s decision brings clarity to the often-blurred line between art and functionality. While Birkenstocks may hold a special place in many people’s wardrobes and cultural consciousness, the court’s ruling reminds us that not all forms of creativity are eligible for the same level of legal protection. As the footwear industry continues to evolve, the case serves as a reminder of the challenges of balancing innovation, competition, and intellectual property rights in a world where design plays an increasingly central role in consumer choices.
