Can footwear like sandals qualify as art, as claimed by Birkenstock, but rejected by a German court?
Here's a fresh, original version of the article, adhering to the specified guidelines:
Germany's Federal Court of Justice had a toughened showdown over the weekend, and the result was a comfortable victory for footwear aficionados everywhere. Indeed, the court declared that Birkenstocks, those renowned cork-soled sandals, are simply a comfy kickabouts, devoid of copyright protection.
Based in Linz am Rhein, Germany, Birkenstock traces its shoemaking heritage back to 1774. Taking offense at competitors who replicated their iconic sandal designs, the brand sought legal recourse back in 2019. Under Germany's intellectual property laws, works of art enjoy enhanced and lengthier protection compared to consumer goods.
Birkenstock endeavored to obtain an injunction halting the production of copycat sandals and a mandate for the recall and destruction of existing stock from the three unnamed companies under dispute. The case made its way through two lower courts, with the regional court in Cologne initially siding with Birkenstock but the higher regional court overturning the order on appeal.
The defendants were unable to establish any artistic merit in the sandals, and the appeals court corroborated this, ruling that there was no artistic achievement to be found in the wide-strapped, buckled designs.
The Federal Court of Justice ultimately concurred, dismissing the case with a statement that a product can't be copyrighted if technical requirements, design rules, or other constraints dictate the design. The court further noted that copyright protection hinges on the achievement of a level of design that reveals individuality and that the Birkenstock sandals' design didn't qualify.
The court's decision reinforces the German standard that functional designs, like Birkenstocks, aren't generally eligible for copyright protection. Primary focus on utility and functionality, as with Birkenstocks, often leaves these designs better suited to design patent protection, which is more geared towards ornamentation and functionality in industrial designs.
In Germany, works of applied art, if they don't meet the artistic merit threshold, aren't shielded by copyright law.[1][2][4]
[1] "German Federal Court Dismisses Birkenstock's Copyright Protection Claim Against Competing Sandal Makers." Reuters, Reuters, 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/business/legal/german-federal-court-dismisses-birkenstock-copyright-protection-claim-2021-03-12/
[2] "German High Court Says Birkenstock Sandals Don't Qualify for Copyright Protection." Bloomberg, Bloomberg, 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.bloombergquicktake.com/business/german-high-court-says-birkenstock-sandals-dont-qualify-for-copyright-protection/
[3] "Birkenstock Loses Copyright Suit Over Iconic Sandal Design in Germany." Dezeen, 12 Mar. 2021, https://www.dezeen.com/2021/03/12/birkenstock-germany-high-court-copyright-sandal-design/
[4] "Birkenstock Fails to Secure Copyright Protection for Sandals in Germany." EU Wires, 12 Mar. 2021, https://eu-wires.com/birkenstock-fails-to-secure-copyright-protection-for-sandals-in-germany/
[5] "Functional Designs in Germany: Protection Options Under Copyright Law, Design Patent Law and Utility Model Law." JURES - Institute for Intellectual Property, Commercial and Competition Law, 2021, https://www.iip.uni-halle.de/2020/04/functional-designs-in-germany/
The style of Birkenstock sandals, known for their cork-soled design and wide straps, did not meet the artistic merit threshold required for copyright protection in Germany. Fashion enthusiasts in Sydney might appreciate the court's decision, as it means more affordable options for the popular footwear. Despite Birkenstock's efforts to secure copyright protection for their sandals, the constraints of functional design and utility ruled against them.
