
Birkenstock sandals are not art, a German court rules in copyright case
By Craig Nigrelli (Anchor), Shea Taylor (Producer), Emma Stoltzfus (Producer/Video Editor)
- A German court has ruled that Birkenstock sandals are not a form of art. Birkenstock had sought to classify its shoes as art to be afforded copyright protections.
- In Germany, copyright protections last 70 years, while design protections only last 25.
- The company wanted to prevent its competitors from making similar shoes, and have those products destroyed.
Full Story
While many people may consider fashion a form of art, one German court does not agree. Birkenstocks may be the go-to choice of footwear for everyone from Barbie to Hollywood A-listers, but one judge said they’re still just shoes.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled that Birkenstock's sandals are not art, but regular footwear, dismissing the company's claims for copyright protection.
- The court stated that functionality and craft take precedence over artistic expression for copyright protection.
- Birkenstock argued that its sandals are "copyright-protected works of applied art" in the lawsuit.
- The case saw conflicting decisions in lower courts, with a regional court initially supporting Birkenstock before the appeal reversed that decision.
- A German court ruled that Birkenstock sandals do not qualify as works of art and therefore cannot be protected by copyright laws, according to presiding judge Thomas Koch.
- Birkenstock claimed its footwear design should be protected due to popularity, but the court stated that shoes serve a practical purpose.
- The Federal Court of Justice confirmed an appeals court's decision, stating that practical design items do not qualify for copyright protection.
- Under German law, for a product to be copyright-protected, it must show a certain level of individual creativity, which the court determined Birkenstock sandals lacked.
- No summary available because of a lack of coverage.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Why was this a legal issue?
In a court filing, Birkenstock claimed its footwear could be classified as art, and therefore protected by copyright law, as its competitors looked to make their own versions of the sell-out sandal.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.
Point phone camera here
Under German law, art is covered by copyright protection, which lasts for 70 years after the creator’s death, while design protection only lasts 25 years from when the filing was made.
What was Birkenstock’s argument?
Known for its orthopedic qualities, Birkenstock argued in a German federal court that other shoe companies were essentially selling “knock-off” versions of what it calls its “iconic design.”
Birkenstock asked that similar products sold by the German retailers Tchibo and Shoe.com, as well as Danish retailer Bestseller, be pulled from the shelves and destroyed.
What did the judge say?
The judge ruled against Birkenstock, putting an end to a legal battle that began in May of 2023.
“For copyright protection to apply, there must be such a degree of design that the product displays some individuality,” the judge said.
Birkenstock called the ruling a “missed opportunity for the protection of intellectual property.”
[Craig Nigrelli]
WHILE MANY PEOPLE MAY CONSIDER FASHION A FORM OF ART… ONE GERMAN COURT IS NOT AMONG THOSE.
BIRKENSTOCKS MAY BE THE GO-TO CHOICE OF FOOTWEAR FOR EVERYONE FROM BARBIE TO HOLLYWOOD A-LISTERS… BUT ONE JUDGE SAYS THEY’RE STILL **JUST** SHOES.
THE COMPANY CLAIMED ITS FOOTWEAR COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS ART – AND THEREFORE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW AS ITS COMPETITORS LOOKED TO MAKE THEIR OWN VERSIONS OF THE SELL-OUT SANDAL.
UNDER GERMAN LAW, ART IS COVERED BY COPYRIGHT PROTECTION – WHICH LASTS FOR 70 YEARS AFTER THE CREATOR’S DEATH – WHILE DESIGN PROTECTION ONLY LASTS 25 YEARS FROM WHEN THE FILING WAS MADE.
KNOWN FOR ITS ORTHOPEDIC QUALITIES… BIRKENSTOCK ARGUED IN A GERMAN FEDERAL COURT OTHER SHOE COMPANIES WERE ESSENTIALLY SELLING “KNOCK-OFF” VERSIONS OF WHAT IT CALLS ITS QUOTE “ICONIC DESIGN.”
BIRKENSTOCK WAS ASKING THAT SIMILAR PRODUCTS SOLD BY THE GERMAN RETAILERS TCHIBO AND SHOE-DOT-COM… AS WELL AS DANISH RETAILER BESTSELLER – BE PULLED FROM THE SHELVES AND DESTROYED.
THE JUDGE RULED AGAINST BIRKENSTOCK – SAYING QUOTE “FOR COPYRIGHT PROTECTION TO APPLY, THERE MUST BE SUCH A DEGREE OF DESIGN THAT THE PRODUCT DISPLAYS SOME INDIVIDUALITY” – ENDING A LEGAL BATTLE WHICH BEGAN IN MAY OF 20-23.
BIRKENSTOCK CALLED THE RULING A QUOTE “MISSED OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.”
TO KEEP UP WITH ALL YOUR LATEST HEADLINES – MAKE SURE YOU DOWNLOAD THE STRAIGHT ARROW NEWS APP TODAY.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled that Birkenstock's sandals are not art, but regular footwear, dismissing the company's claims for copyright protection.
- The court stated that functionality and craft take precedence over artistic expression for copyright protection.
- Birkenstock argued that its sandals are "copyright-protected works of applied art" in the lawsuit.
- The case saw conflicting decisions in lower courts, with a regional court initially supporting Birkenstock before the appeal reversed that decision.
- A German court ruled that Birkenstock sandals do not qualify as works of art and therefore cannot be protected by copyright laws, according to presiding judge Thomas Koch.
- Birkenstock claimed its footwear design should be protected due to popularity, but the court stated that shoes serve a practical purpose.
- The Federal Court of Justice confirmed an appeals court's decision, stating that practical design items do not qualify for copyright protection.
- Under German law, for a product to be copyright-protected, it must show a certain level of individual creativity, which the court determined Birkenstock sandals lacked.
- No summary available because of a lack of coverage.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.