Birkenstock Copyright Case
Birkenstock goes BGH
The German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) recently delivered a ruling in a case that has long been watched with interest by both the fashion and legal communities. In a decision that many had anticipated, the court ruled against Birkenstock, denying the company copyright protection for its iconic sandal designs, including models such as the Arizona, Gizeh, Madrid, and Boston. They are simply well-executed, ergonomic products without substantial artistic merit, and artistic decisions could not be derived from the objective appearance of the sandals. A mere choice between different design options is not sufficient for a product to be considered a work of art and Birkenstock was not able to prove that the existing scope for design has been artistically exhausted to such an extent that the sandal models are protected by copyright.
Copyright vs. Design
The core legal question in this case is whether Birkenstock’s sandal designs possess a sufficient level of artistic creativity to qualify for copyright protection. Under German copyright law, works of applied art under the meaning of section 2 (1) no. 4 of the German Copyright Act (Urheberrechtsgesetz) can be protected if they reach a certain threshold of artistic originality. The crux of the matter lies in section 2 (2) German Copyright Act – the design must not only serve a functional purpose but also reflect an independent and distinctive artistic concept of the originator.
Throughout the legal battle, Birkenstock claimed that its sandals transcended mere functionality by embodying a unique artistic vision. The company argued that its products were more than just ergonomic footwear; they were creative works deserving of the broader and longer-lasting protection that copyright affords. Copyright protection, unlike design protection, does not require registration and extends for the creator’s lifetime plus 70 years after their death, thus offering a far more comprehensive shield against imitation. In contrast, design protection is limited to the aesthetic aspects like form and material of a product and typically lasts for only up to 25 years, focusing solely on preventing direct copying of a product’s appearance. Design protection can be complemented with trademark protection to protect products against intellectual property right infringements.
Functional means practical, not creative
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate interests of Birkenstock. By clarifying that functionality and aesthetic appeal alone do not meet the threshold for copyright protection, the decision sets a precedent that could influence similar cases in the future. Companies in industries where form and function intersect—ranging from fashion to furniture—may now find themselves navigating a stricter legal landscape when attempting to claim broader intellectual property rights. In the wake of the decision, the balance between encouraging creative design and protecting the practical aspects of product development has been firmly reestablished, reinforcing the traditional boundaries between copyright and design protection.