Birkenstock Sandals: A Case of Artistic Merit and Copyright Protection
Introduction
On Thursday, April 8, 2024, at 8:45 a.m., the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) will rule on whether Birkenstock sandals constitute works of art protected by copyright law. The footwear manufacturer, headquartered in Linz am Rhein, Rhineland-Palatinate, has filed suit against three companies that sell similar sandal models. Birkenstock alleges infringement of its copyright. (Case Ref.: I ZR 16/24 et al.)
Copyright Law in Germany
Copyright law grants exclusive exploitation rights to the "creator" of a work for the duration of the author’s life plus 70 years. Third parties are prohibited from reproducing or distributing the work without permission. Protection extends to literary works, films, computer programs, and works of art.
Birkenstock’s Argument
Birkenstock maintains that its sandal designs are works of applied art and, as such, are protected by copyright. The company believes the sandals exhibit a unique and creative aesthetic that distinguishes them from other footwear.
Previous Ruling
The Higher Regional Court of Cologne, in an earlier ruling, disagreed with Birkenstock’s assessment. The court found that the sandals did not meet the criteria of a "work." It determined that no artistic achievement could be discerned.
Significance of the BGH Ruling
The BGH’s decision will have far-reaching implications for the fashion industry and the interpretation of copyright law. A ruling in Birkenstock’s favor would strengthen the protection of fashion designs and expand the scope of copyright coverage. Conversely, a ruling against Birkenstock would limit the application of copyright to more traditional artistic creations.
Arguments in Favor of Copyright Protection
- Originality and Creativity: Birkenstock argues that its sandals are unique and original creations that have been developed over decades of innovation. The combination of materials, textures, and shapes result in a distinctive and recognizable design.
- Artistic Expression: Supporters of Birkenstock’s position contend that the sandals are not merely functional objects but also convey artistic expression. The design elements, from the contoured footbed to the buckled strap, contribute to a cohesive and aesthetically pleasing aesthetic.
- Economic Value: Birkenstock’s sandals have achieved significant commercial success, partly due to their distinctive design. Copyright protection would recognize and protect the economic value associated with this design.
Arguments Against Copyright Protection
- Utility and Functionality: Opponents of copyright protection for Birkenstock’s sandals argue that they are primarily utilitarian objects. The design and shape are driven by functional considerations, such as comfort and support.
- Lack of Artistic Merit: Some argue that Birkenstock’s sandals do not rise to the level of artistic creation. They question the aesthetic value of the design and suggest it is more akin to industrial design than fine art.
- Innovation and Competition: Limiting copyright protection in the fashion industry could stifle innovation and competition. Granting exclusive rights to a particular design may hinder the development of new and improved products.
Conclusion
The BGH’s decision will provide a definitive interpretation of copyright protection in the realm of fashion design. It will determine whether functional objects like Birkenstock sandals can be considered works of art and, thus, eligible for copyright protection. This ruling will have a profound impact on the fashion industry and the balance between intellectual property rights and the promotion of innovation.
