Birkenstocks Are Not Works of Art, According to a German Court
The ruling comes after years of legal battles surrounding cheaper knock-offs, which the company argues are a violation of copyright law
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/headshot/eli2.png)
From their cork soles to their chunky buckles, Birkenstocks are an iconic piece of footwear. But should they be considered works of art?
When it comes to their legal status, the answer is no: Last week, a German federal court ruled that Birkenstocks aren’t art and therefore can’t enjoy stronger copyright protections against knock-offs and imitators.
The ruling comes after several years of legal battles. Birkenstock claimed that its sandals were “copyrighted works of applied art” and wanted off-brand competitors sold by some German and Danish retailers to be pulled off shelves and destroyed. The court concluded that its design, while famous, couldn’t receive the protections afforded to artworks.
“Purely technical creation using formal design elements is not eligible for copyright protection,” the court in Karlsruhe said in its ruling, per a translation by the Associated Press’ Kirsten Grieshaber. “Rather, for copyright protection, a level of design must be achieved that reveals individuality.”
But the shoe company insists that its design is indeed unique—and inspired by far more than the constraints of orthopedic comfort.
“The shoe is influenced by Brutalist architecture. This can be seen very clearly in individual elements of the shoe,” Konstantin Wegner, a lawyer for Birkenstock, tells the German broadcaster ARD’s Egzona Hyseni, per a translation by Politico’s Csongor Körömi.
“We are therefore absolutely convinced that the shoe is an iconic design,” Wegner adds.
The brand dates back to 1774. Its founder, Johannes Birkenstock, and his brother “lived the simple life of rural craftsmen, hand-making shoes from start to finish,” according to Birkenstock’s website. A few generations later, the Birkenstocks began designing shoes that complemented the natural structure of the foot.
By the 1920s, Konrad Birkenstock marketed the sandals specifically for their orthopedic purposes, and a few decades after that, Karl Birkenstock began producing a product “where the structure and construction was visible and integral to the design, which is a perfect reflection of Brutalism.”
Emily Brayshaw, a historian of fashion at the University of Technology in Sydney, calls Birkenstocks “an amazing piece of applied art,” according to the Washington Post’s Kelsey Ables.
“Even deciding that function must come first and aesthetics must come second is still an aesthetic decision,” Brayshaw adds.
But in the eyes of the court, architectural inspiration wasn’t enough to protect the brand’s most iconic styles—the Madrid, Arizona, Boston and Gizeh sandals—from cheaper imitations. An official pair of suede Arizona Birkenstocks costs $135. On Amazon, a nearly identical knock-off sells for $22, Jacob Gallagher reports for the New York Times.
Some design experts agree with the court that Birkenstocks’ orthopedic features are more essential to the brand than the design.
“I wouldn’t necessarily say that the design is overwhelmingly unique or innovative,” Grant Delgatty, an industrial designer at the University of Southern California and the former head of design at the shoe company Vans, tells the Washington Post. “What makes Birkenstocks special is how they mold to your feet.”
As Jared Goldstein, a lawyer specializing in footwear and the co-author of Sneaker Law, says to the Times, “The court found that while Birkenstock’s sandals are undeniably iconic, their design is largely driven by ergonomic and orthopedic needs, not creative expression.”
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/a8/f2/a8f2ffbe-0293-43b4-83fa-9b757b29cc8b/birkenstock_shop_potsdam.jpg)
Alexandra Sherlock, a fashion researcher at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and founder of the Footwear Research Network, tells the Washington Post that the lawsuit itself is antithetical to the brand’s “humble origins” and ethos of providing quality, natural footwear to all.
The shoes’ association with hippies began around the 1970s, after designer Margot Fraser purchased a pair in Germany and brought them back to California. More recently, after the Birkenstock family sold the brand to a private equity group in 2021, the footwear brand raised $1.48 billion in its initial public offering. The shoes still play a role in pop culture, even making an appearance in the Barbie movie.
In a statement, Birkenstock calls the court’s decision “a missed opportunity for copyright protection in Germany,” according to the Washington Post. The shoe company adds that it will “continue to take tough action against copycats who think they can make money from other people’s creative ideas and inventions.”
