Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs
A German court is putting its foot down. Birkenstocks are not art.
Birkenstocks are cool enough for influencers, Hollywood stars and even Barbie — but they do not qualify as art, Germany’s top court ruled Thursday.
The company claimed that their shoes can be classified as art and therefore are protected by copyright laws.
Birkenstock first released the Original Birkenstock-Footbed Sandal in 1963, featuring a flexible cork-latex footbed and a simple adjustable strap.
While the sandal tends to go in and out of the “cool” category, they’ve been a mainstay and continue to make A-list appearances, like from Kate Moss in the 1960s or from Margot Robbie in the 2023 “Barbie” movie.
Because of their popularity, shoe rivals will often sell knock-off versions, or dupes, which prompted the company to seek copyright protection.
The shoe manufacturer — which is headquartered in Linz am Rhein, Germany — filed a lawsuit against three competitors who sold shoes similar to theirs, claiming that the sandals “are copyright-protected works of applied art” that may not be copied, the Associated Press reported.
In German law, products are distinguished between design and art. Design serves a practical purpose, while works of art need to display a certain extent of individual creativity, according to the BBC.
Design protection lasts for just 25 years from the filing, while works of art are covered by copyright protection for 70 years after the creator’s passing. Carl Birkenstock, born in the 1930s, is still alive.
Birkenstock requested an injunction to stop the competitors, who were not identified in the court statement, from making copycats of their signature wide-strapped sandals with big buckles and ordering them to recall those already being sold.
The judge dismissed the claim, saying it was “unfounded” and adding that for copyright protection, “a degree of design must be achieved that shows individuality.”
Birkenstock deemed the ruling a “missed opportunity for the protection of intellectual property” and said in a statement that it “continues its fight against copycats with undiminished vigor” by exhausting “all legal means to defend itself against imitations.”
Prior to the ruling from Germany’s highest court for civil trials, two lower courts also heard the case — and they disagreed on the issue. A regional court in Cologne initially said the shoes were works of applied art and granted the orders.
However, Cologne’s higher regional court overturned the orders on appeal, according to German news agency dpa. The court said it couldn’t establish artistic achievement with the sandals.
The Federal Court of Justice sided with Cologne’s appeals court, dismissing the case.
The ruling said that a product can’t be copyrighted if “technical requirements, rules or other constraints determine the design.”
“For the copyright protection of a work of applied art — as for all other types of work — the level of design must not be too low,” the court wrote. “For copyright protection, a level of design must be achieved that reveals individuality.”
