After years of litigation, Germany’s top court — Federal Court of Justice — on Thursday (February 20) ruled that Birkenstock sandals do not qualify as works of art.
The development came in a case filed by Birkenstock in which it had argued that its footwear could be classified as art and so was protected by copyright laws.
While the court said the sandals were just practical design items, the company called the judgement a “missed opportunity for the protection of intellectual property”.
Here is a look at the case, and why the court said the sandals were not works of art.
What was the case?
Birkenstock, which is headquartered in Linz am Rhein in western Germany, had filed a lawsuit against three competitors — German retailers Tchibo and shoe.com, and the Danish retailer Bestseller — who sold sandals that were very similar to its own.
The company sought to copyright four of its orthopaedic-rooted slip-ons — the Madrid, Arizona, Boston, and Gizeh — arguing that they were applied art, which is “a designation given to creations defined by functionality in daily life and aesthetic merits,” according to a report by the Washington Post.
“The company said imitations would violate the copyright its footwear would be entitled to under the designation as it tries to keep some knockoffs, often called “fakenstocks,” at bay,” the report said.
Story continues below this ad
Birkenstock wanted the court to issue an injunction to stop the aforementioned competitors from making copycat sandals, and order them to recall and destroy those already on the market.
What did the court say?
The top court said Birkenstock’s claims were “unfounded”, saying “for copyright protection to apply, there must be such a degree of design that the product displays some individuality.”
The court also said that “pure craftsmanship using formal design elements” was not enough.
Under German law, when it comes to a product, art and design are different. “Design serves a practical purpose, whereas works of art need to show a certain amount of individual creativity,” according to a report by BBC.
Story continues below this ad
Works of art enjoy stronger and longer-lasting copyright protection compared to consumer products. While copyright protection for art lasts for 70 years after the creator’s death, design protection lasts for 25 years from when the filing was made.
Birkenstock tried to gain copyright protection by seeking to classify its footwear as art because shoemaker Karl Birkenstock is still alive, and some of his designs no longer have design protection.
Other Articles
Jezzel Wee creates art for interaction
Review: Mathilde Denize’s “Sound of Figures” at Perrotin New York
No Comment! Be the first one.