Birkenstock’s Arizona, Madrid and Florida sandals are among the most recognisable footwear designs in Europe, yet in 2025, courts in two neighbouring EU Member States reached opposite conclusions on whether those same designs qualify for copyright protection, exposing how differently the same legal standard can operate across jurisdictions.
In February 2025, Germany’s Federal Court of Justice rejected copyright protection for Birkenstock’s sandals, while in November 2025, the District Court of Midden-Nederland in Utrecht recognised, for now, copyright protection for key models from the same product line under Dutch copyright law. The designs themselves did not change, only the legal assessment did.
For anyone in fashion, footwear or design, the contrast is more than interesting. Copyright protection for product design does not work the same way across markets, even within the European Union.
The Sandals in Question
Birkenstock’s Madrid sandal and Arizona sandal were introduced in 1963 and 1973 respectively, both designed by Karl Birkenstock as orthopaedic footwear built around foot health. Their defining features, including the contoured cork-latex footbed, minimal strap configuration and functional sole, became closely associated with the brand and helped establish a recognisable visual identity in the market. In 1981, a distinctive bone-pattern tread was added to the outsole.
Over time, these sandals moved far beyond their medical origins and became commercially and culturally significant products, appearing in fashion editorials, luxury collaborations and museum collections. In the Dutch proceedings, Birkenstock’s Florida sandal was also part of the dispute, while claims relating to the Boston clog and Gizeh sandal were assessed separately.
Germany: Copyright Protection Rejected
The German proceedings arose after a competitor marketed visually similar leather sandals online under the name Leder Sandale. Birkenstock brought copyright infringement claims, arguing that its sandal designs reflected a series of specific design choices across the sole shape, cut, material selection and overall visual character, and that these together amounted to original artistic authorship.
That argument failed.
The Federal Court of Justice reviewed the appellate decision and found no error in how the legal standard had been applied. It confirmed that the main features of the sandals were driven by function and orthopaedic needs. Even if other designs were possible, that alone did not make the design original. What mattered was whether the design freedom available had been used in a creative, artistic way. The court found that it had not.
Birkenstock also pointed to museum exhibitions and design awards as evidence of the sandals’ artistic value. The court rejected that argument, holding that commercial success, cultural recognition and aesthetic appeal do not, on their own, make a product copyrightable.
Birkenstock’s copyright claims failed in Germany.
The Netherlands: Copyright Protection Granted
In November 2025, the District Court of Midden-Nederland reached a different conclusion in proceedings against Dutch retailer Scapino. The court found that Birkenstock’s Arizona sandal, Madrid sandal and Florida sandal qualified for copyright protection as original works, and that Scapino had infringed those rights by selling visually similar products.
The Dutch court was aware of the earlier German ruling and explicitly reached a different conclusion. The divergence appears to lie in how originality was assessed. Where the German court placed significant weight on the functional nature of individual design features, the Dutch court appears to have focused more on the overall combination and arrangement of those features. That difference in approach proved decisive. Even where individual elements served a practical purpose, the overall appearance of the sandal was found to reflect sufficient creative choices to qualify for copyright protection.
This is an important distinction. Copyright protection does not require every element of a product design to be independently original. What matters is whether the work as a whole reflects the author’s own intellectual creation. The Dutch court found that it did.
The court ordered Scapino to cease sales immediately or face penalties of up to €100,000, disclose sales figures dating back to August 2024, and pay more than €50,000 in legal costs.
Why the Outcomes Differed
The divergence between the German and Dutch decisions lies less in the legal rule and more in how it was applied.
Both courts were dealing with the same broad question: whether the sandals reflected the author’s own intellectual creation. The German court approached the issue by examining whether the individual features were driven by function. The Dutch court appears to have looked more at the overall composition and whether the final design reflected enough creative individuality.
That difference in analytical approach changed the outcome.
This is not necessarily a case of one court being right and the other wrong. It reflects the reality that courts in different countries can apply the same general legal framework differently to the same facts.
What This Means in Practice
Copyright protection for product design is not uniform across jurisdictions, even within the European Union. A design protected in one country may receive no protection in another. A loss in one market does not mean the design is unprotectable everywhere, and a win in one market does not guarantee broader protection.
For products where function and aesthetics overlap, registered design rights often offer more predictability than copyright. They require early registration and have a limited term, but they provide a clearer basis for enforcement.
Unfair competition law may provide another route, particularly for brands with strong market recognition and consumer association, but this too depends on evidence.
The broader point is that no single legal tool is enough. Brands with commercially valuable product designs should build overlapping layers of protection from the outset and maintain them across the markets in which they operate.
A Broader Development to Watch
In December 2025, the Court of Justice of the European Union clarified in the Mio/konektra case that works of applied art should not face a higher originality threshold than other copyright works under EU law.
That ruling does not directly resolve the Birkenstock dispute, nor does it guarantee uniform outcomes across Member States, but it is an important development for brands, designers and legal teams to watch. How national courts absorb and apply that guidance in future cases remains to be seen.
Conclusion
Birkenstock’s sandals did not change in 2025. The courts’ views did.
In Germany, the sandals were treated as functional products rather than artistic works. In the Netherlands, some of those same sandals were treated as original enough to qualify for copyright protection.
Both courts applied the same broad legal principles. The outcomes could hardly have been more different.
For any brand that assumes copyright protection travels automatically with a famous design, the Birkenstock cases are a useful correction. Protection depends on where it is enforced, what evidence exists and whether the right legal foundations were built before a competitor entered the market.