The German Federal Court of Justice/ German Bundesgerichtshof was recently tasked to analyse whether the ever-so-popular Birkenstock sandals are a work of art. The Court, however, answered in the negative and refused copyright protection in sandals, as sought by the Birkenstock Group (“Birkenstock”). The increasing fame and trendiness of Birkenstock sandals have only added to the discussions on this landmark ruling. This article aims to review and analyse the decision of the German Court in the Indian context.
Ruling of the German Court
The lawsuit was filed by Birkenstock alleging infringement of copyright subsisting in the design of its sandals, by use of similarly designed sandals by the defendants. In the first instance, the Hamburg District Court sided with Birkenstock and held that their sandals could indeed be protected under the German Copyright Act. However, the decision was reversed in an appeal by the Cologne Higher Regional Court, which was subsequently upheld by the Federal Court of Justice as well.
The Federal Court of Justice essentially held that Birkenstock’s sandals are not a work of ‘applied art’ as protected by copyright. For copyright protection to be granted, the Court observed that creative freedom must be exploited in an artistic manner. However, as the design of Birkenstock’s sandals was predetermined by technical requirements and does not reflect the intellectual creation of the author, the Court held that the sandals did not showcase the creator’s artistic freedom and choice.
The Court further held that Birkenstock’s sandals did not differ artistically from the usual designs of health sandals already known at the time. Birkenstock, in the Court’s opinion, did not exploit the existing scope for design in a creative way that reflected the author’s personality; rather, the design was primarily oriented towards the result of a product that was particularly ‘healthy’ for the foot and marketable. Hence, the Court concluded that there was no ‘artistic achievement’ in the sandals in question and copyright protection was consequently refused.
