German Federal Court Denies Copyright for Birkenstock Sandals – A Case of Form vs. Function?

March 18, 2025 | Northern Virginia Graphics, Inc.

In a February 20 judgement, the Federal Court of Justice in Germany rejected a claim made by Birkenstock that their shoes qualify for copyright. The notable sandal company sought legal action against various unnamed defendants whose sandal products, they alleged, infringed Birkenstock’s copyright. In two prior rulings, different regional courts disagreed on whether or not Birkenstock sandals are to be considered works of applied art protected by German copyright law.

The Federal Court of Justice agreed with the Higher Regional Court of Cologne, ruling that Birkenstock’s shoes do not meet the high threshold of artistic creativity required for copyright protection as applied art under German law. The Birkenstock sandals were deemed ineligible for copyright protection because their design is primarily dictated by technical constraints rather than artistic expression and lacks the high degree of individuality required for applied art protection.

 Although Birkenstock Group’s efforts to pursue copyright protection did not succeed, the company’s shoe products are still protected by various design patents, trademarks, and trade dresses in multiple countries. In fact, Birkenstock brought forth an action this past September against the shoe company White Mountain for producing “knock-offs” of several Birkenstock shoes and sandals, accusing both patent and trade dress infringement. However, the defendant argues that the Birkenstock sandals in question do not actually satisfy the prerequisites of non-functionality and distinctiveness for trade dress eligibility. 

The fuzziness surrounding IP law definitions at the intersection of art and function is a long-standing point of discussion in the United States and abroad. By definition, there is a clear distinction between a utility and a design patent. However, while many claims easily fall into one category, some innovations may qualify for both. Similarly, copyright and trademark protections can overlap patent protections. For example, certain creations falling under the categories of apparel, toys, product designs, etc. can be argued to have both artistic and utilitarian value.

Therefore, it is not surprising that a company like Birkenstock would claim multiple IP protections for a shoe design. There are advantages to having more than one form of protection for an original invention or design. Utility patents and design patents have an expiration date of 20 and 15 years, respectively. Copyrights however, generally last for the length of an author’s life plus 70 more years, and trademarks can be renewed indefinitely in many countries. Patents, trademarks, and copyrights can also lead to different legal consequences in case of infringement. For example, copyright holders can seek statutory damages without specific proof of financial loss, while patent holders must have proof of lost profits to recover them. If a patent is willfully infringed, the court is able to triple the damages. 

Source: Federal Court – No copyright protection for Birkenstock sandals