Birkenstock sandals: Iconic design, but not art, rules German court

In a significant legal decision, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice has ruled that Birkenstock’s iconic sandals do not qualify as works of art and, therefore, are not eligible for copyright protection. This verdict represents a setback for the renowned German footwear company in its ongoing efforts to combat imitation products.

The Legal Battle

Birkenstock initiated legal proceedings against three competitors, including Tchibo, alleging that these companies produced sandals closely resembling its well-known models—Arizona, Gizeh, Madrid, and Boston. The crux of Birkenstock’s argument was that these designs should be recognized as “works of applied art,” a designation that would afford them copyright protection under German law. This protection would extend beyond the typical design rights, which last up to 25 years, granting exclusive rights for 70 years after the creator’s death. Given that Karl Birkenstock, the designer of these models in the 1970s, is still alive, the company sought to secure prolonged protection for its designs. 

The legal journey saw varied interpretations in lower courts. Initially, a regional court sided with Birkenstock, acknowledging the artistic merit of the designs. However, this decision was overturned by a higher regional court, which concluded that the sandals did not meet the necessary criteria for artistic achievement required for copyright protection. The Federal Court of Justice upheld this latter ruling, emphasizing that designs primarily dictated by technical or functional requirements do not qualify as art under copyright law. 

Implications for Birkenstock

This ruling poses challenges for Birkenstock in its fight against counterfeit products. Without the shield of copyright protection, the company faces limitations in legal avenues to prevent competitors from producing similar-looking sandals. Despite this legal setback, Birkenstock has expressed its intention to continue pursuing litigation in multiple countries to protect its brand and designs. The company has been vocal about condemning the counterfeit industry, highlighting unethical practices such as child labor associated with imitation products. 

Birkenstock’s Evolution and Cultural Impact

Founded in 1774 by Johann Adam Birkenstock, the company has evolved from producing orthopedic insoles to becoming a global fashion powerhouse. The signature contoured cork footbed, introduced in the 1960s, has been a cornerstone of its design, offering both comfort and support. Over the decades, Birkenstock sandals have transcended their utilitarian origins, gaining popularity among a diverse audience, including celebrities and fashion enthusiasts. Collaborations with high-profile designers and appearances in fashion shows have further cemented their status in the fashion world. 

The Art vs. Design Debate

The case brings to the forefront the nuanced distinction between art and design in legal contexts. While design protection offers a finite period of exclusivity, recognizing a product as a work of art under copyright law extends protection significantly. However, achieving this designation requires demonstrating a level of artistic creativity that transcends mere functionality. In Birkenstock’s case, the courts determined that the sandals, while iconic, did not exhibit the requisite artistic merit to be classified as works of art.

Looking Ahead

The ruling underscores the challenges companies face in protecting designs that straddle the line between functionality and artistic expression. For Birkenstock, the decision may prompt a reassessment of its intellectual property strategies, potentially focusing on other legal protections or innovative design elements to distinguish its products in the marketplace. As the company continues to navigate the complexities of design protection, this case serves as a pivotal reference point in the ongoing discourse on the intersection of art, design, and intellectual property rights.