Birkenstock’s Copyright Battle: German Court Rejects Claim
Justice Manmohan Singh of the Delhi High Court has remarked in a judgment, “The world is a global village.” This sentiment captures the essence of our interconnected era, where globalization and interconnected markets continually redefine our world. Today, the judgments handed down in courtrooms across the globe can have far-reaching consequences and the ripples of these legal decisions extend far beyond their local jurisdictions, influencing economies and industries worldwide.
As we analyse a recent decision by Germany’s highest Court of civil and criminal jurisdiction, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH) which serves as a significant precedent in the fashion and footwear industries concerning the interplay between works of art and copyright protection.
Birkenstock, a globally recognized German footwear brand with a legacy spanning over 250 years, is renowned for its orthopedic-inspired designs. Founded in 1774, by Johann Adam Birkenstock, the company’s use of cork and latex soles, along with its ergonomic design, has made its sandals a staple in both comfort-focused and high-fashion markets. In recent years, Birkenstock has collaborated with luxury designers and even launched an IPO valued at $1.48 billion, further cementing its influence.
In light of its widespread recognition, Birkenstock has faced persistent issues from its competitors who were manufacturing knockoff designs. In an effort to safeguard its creations from unauthorized imitation, Birkenstock sought to protect four of its most famous models namely, Madrid, Arizona, Boston, and Gizeh as copyrights.
The company’s objective was to prevent its competitors from producing similar designs, & claimed that its designs should be classified as “works of applied art” under German copyright law, which would afford them stronger and longer-lasting protection compared to design rights. In Germany, copyright protection extends for 70 years after the creator’s death, whereas design protection lasts for only 25 years from the date of filing the application.
Birkenstock also filed lawsuits against its competitors including German retailers such as Tchibo and Schuh, as well as Danish fashion company Bestseller for producing and selling similar-looking sandals as those of Birkenstock. The lawsuits sought an injunction to halt the production and sale of these alleged lookalikes, as well as a recall and destruction of the infringing products. However, on February 20, 2025, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected Birkenstock’s claims, ruling that its sandals did not qualify as works of applied art.
The BGH upheld an earlier decision by a higher regional Court in Cologne, which had ruled that Birkenstock sandals did not meet the criteria for copyrighted art. The Court observed that in order for a work to qualify for copyright protection, it must exhibit a high degree of originality and artistic individuality. The BGH further observed that while Birkenstock’s sandals were widely recognized all over the world and valued for their comfort and ergonomic features, they lacked the level of creative expression that was necessary to be classified as works of art. The Court ruled that “a mere choice between design options isn’t enough; craftsmanship alone does not equate to art.” which is in line with previous decisions in German intellectual property law, where functionality-driven designs have faced challenges in securing copyright protection.
Birkenstock will now need to rely on alternative legal strategies, in order to maintain its market exclusivity. This ruling carries broader implications for the fashion and footwear industry & underscores the importance of a multi-pronged intellectual property strategy for brands to safeguard their creative assets in competitive markets.
Author’s Note
This decision and the facts surrounding it, prompted me to analyse the implications of the same from the perspective of Indian Intellectual Property Rights Law. Had this case been litigated in India, the outcome might have been different. Unlike Germany, which follows the Roman-Dutch legal tradition and lacks equitable remedies, India follows the Anglo-Saxon legal framework, which allows for broader intellectual property protections through doctrines such as passing off.
In India, Copyright lawyers in India would recognize that Birkenstock would have been entitled to relief under the common law tort of passing off, which is available to protect goodwill and prevent consumer confusion even in the absence of a registered trademark. The test for passing off is based on the ‘classical trinity,’ namely; goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage that Birkenstock could have established given its long-standing brand recognition and market presence. The principle of passing off protects businesses from unfair competition by preventing third parties from misrepresenting their goods as those of an established brand. Given Birkenstock’s strong brand reputation and distinctive sandal designs, an Indian court might have granted an injunction against infringers, even in the absence of copyright protection, particularly when in this case, consumer confusion or brand dilution was evident. Copyright lawyers in India would note that Indian courts, in cases like Cadbury v. ITC and the Coca-Cola trade dress litigation, have demonstrated a willingness to extend protection to unique product features under passing off.