After the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) discussed these cases on January 9 of this year, based on two rulings by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg and the Higher Regional Court of Cologne regarding the copyrightability of the Birkenstock sandals, three decisions by Germany's highest civil court regarding various Birkenstock sandals were published on February 20, 2025. The decisions do not concern, as is often stated in a shortened form, the fundamental question of the protectability of objects of applied art under copyright law. Rather, it is about the question of whether copyright protection can be assumed for objects of applied art if similar, older products were available on the market. The Federal Court of Justice took the chance to specify the legal standards for copyright protection of objects of applied art. In the court's view, the decisive factor was that Birkenstock had failed to demonstrate that the design freedom available for such products had been used artistically. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the decision of the Cologne Higher Regional Court, according to which, unlike the decision of the Hamburg Higher Regional Court, copyright protection for the Birkenstock sandals was rejected. Those who would like to learn more about this legal topic before the Federal Court of Justice's decision is made are welcome to read the article by Prof. Dr. Martin Müller and me, published in WRP 2022,1353 which presents the copyright assessment of numerous other products of applied art, e.g. the Porsche 911 or the world-famous Rubik's Cube. 

Detailed information on the decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) regarding Birkenstock can be found in our article, which was published in the magazine “WRP (Wettbewerb in Recht und Praxis)” 2025, S. 561 BGH, 20.02.2025 – I ZR 16/24 – Birkenstocksandale; BGH, 20.02. 2025 – I ZR 18/24 (Arizona/Gizeh); BGH, 20.02.2025 – I ZR 17/24 (Boston/ Gizeh).