data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/115cc/115cc8403b67f9264bbfe9bff30a534aebc6a5a1" alt="Are sandals considered art? Birkenstock argues they are, but a German court disagrees. Are sandals considered art? Birkenstock argues they are, but a German court disagrees."
BERLIN — Birkenstocks have become synonymous with summer, known for their comfort and German heritage. They evoke a range of styles, from trendy to casual. However, a recent legal challenge has raised an intriguing question: can these iconic sandals be classified as art?
This query made its way to Germany’s Federal Court of Justice, which ultimately determined that Birkenstocks are simply comfortable footwear rather than artistic creations.
The company, Birkenstock, based in Linz am Rhein, boasts a shoemaking tradition dating back to 1774. They took legal action against three businesses accused of producing sandals that closely resembled their own.
Birkenstock argued that their sandals should be recognized as “copyright-protected works of applied art,” which are entitled to greater intellectual property protections under German legislation than standard consumer items.
The brand sought a court order to prevent the competitors from continuing to sell these knockoff sandals and demanded that any existing products already on the market be recalled and destroyed. The identities of the competing companies involved were not revealed in the court’s statement.
Before reaching a verdict on Thursday, the case had already been addressed by two lower courts that reached opposing conclusions. Initially, a regional court in Cologne acknowledged the sandals as works of applied art and approved Birkenstock’s requests. However, this decision was later overturned by a higher regional court during an appeal, as reported by German news agency dpa.
The appeals court noted that it could not identify any substantial artistic merit in the sandals, known for their wide straps and prominent buckles. The Federal Court of Justice upheld this decision, effectively dismissing Birkenstock’s case.
In its ruling, the court stated that for a product to receive copyright protection, it cannot be overly influenced by “technical requirements, rules, or other constraints that determine its design.”
Furthermore, the court elaborated that to qualify for copyright protection as an applied art piece, a design must exhibit a level of creativity that reflects individuality.