The German brand Birkenstock is known for making comfortable and functional sandals. Their design, characterized by cork soles, wide leather straps and buckles, has transformed these sandals into a globally recognized fashion item.
This success has led Birkenstock to seek greater legal protection for its products, safeguarding its most iconic designs. Such is the case of the sandal designs, registered with the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA) under registration numbers 402021100357 and 402020203529.
In this context, the company sought to have its sandals considered “works of art”, which would have allowed them to benefit from copyright protection for 70 years, instead of the 25 years of protection provided by the regulations for industrial designs. As part of this strategy, the company took legal action against competitors such as Tchibo, which it accused of marketing similar products.
Recently, Birkenstock filed a new lawsuit against a competitor that marketed sandals under the name “LEDER SANDALEN”. The company alleged that these models replicated distinctive features of its designs, such as the pattern of the sole, the uncovered shape of the sole and the specific choice of materials.
According to Birkenstock, these features reflect a unique and original act of creation by Karl Birkenstock, designer of the “Madrid” and “Arizona” models, qualifying them as examples of applied art with sufficient creativity to be legally protected. Consequently, they requested judicial measures such as the prohibition of distribution of the infringing products, the payment of damages, and the destruction of the sandals which they considered to be unauthorized copies.
In contrast, the defendant argued that its models did not constitute copies of Birkenstock’s designs, since they were based exclusively on practical functions and not on artistic aspects that could be protected under copyright law.
At first instance, the Cologne Regional Court ruled in favor of Birkenstock, considering that its models could be recognized as applied works of art, which enabled the company to obtain injunctive relief to prohibit the marketing of products considered to be imitations.
However, this initial victory was later overturned in higher courts. The German Federal Court of Justice ruled that Birkenstock sandals do not qualify as works of applied art, arguing that the design of the sandals prioritizes functional and technical aspects, such as orthopedic comfort and health, over creative or artistic expression, and therefore would not meet the standard required to be protected as a work of art.
By establishing that the design of the sandals would not meet the artistic standard required to receive the more extensive protection under copyright law, this ruling would prevent Birkenstock from benefiting from the intended protection.
This case sets a precedent in the intellectual property regime, establishing boundaries between industrial design and the standards of creativity and artistic originality necessary to obtain protection under copyright law.
