German court declares Birkenstock sandals are not art

In Germany, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that Birkenstock sandals are simply comfortable footwear and cannot be classified as works of art. This verdict came after Birkenstock filed a lawsuit against three companies selling similar sandals, claiming that its designs are copyright-protected works of applied art. The company argued that under German law, artistic works have stronger protections against imitation than ordinary consumer goods. The case had gone through various levels of the court system, initially gaining some recognition in a regional court before being overturned by a higher regional court. Ultimately, the Federal Court sided with the higher court and dismissed Birkenstock's claims. The court emphasized that for a product to enjoy copyright protection as a work of applied art, it must achieve a certain level of design that expresses individuality. In its ruling, the court stated that products governed by technical requirements and functional constraints cannot be granted copyright. Birkenstock’s sandals, known for their wide straps and practicality, failed to meet this threshold, leading to the decision that functionality and craft outweighed any claims of artistic merit in this instance. This verdict has significant implications for manufacturers and designers within the footwear industry who might view their creations similarly as artistic expressions. The distinction between functional design and art is critical in intellectual property law, as seen in other protected works, such as the Porsche 356 car and designs created by the Bauhaus movement. The outcome of this case contributes to the ongoing dialogue about what constitutes art and how different cultures approach the protection of artistic works, revealing not just legal challenges but also the evolving perception of design in everyday products. Furthermore, the case reflects broader trends in the market where consumer goods can be heavily influenced by style and branding, but remain reliant on established functions. This verdict may deter similar lawsuits in the future by clarifying what is and isn’t protected under copyright as a work of art in Germany. It underscores that, under current laws, even successful and widely recognized brands may face limitations in how they can defend their designs from competitors who produce similar items that adhere to functional and aesthetic norms.