The Birkenstocks can be pretty cool for Barbie but the sandals cannot be described as works of art, ruled German court.

According to the report of Bbcthe company had argued that its shoes could be described as art and thus protected by copyright laws in a case it has submitted to stop its opponents from selling copies of sandals with cork.

But one judge rejected the claim, saying that these shoes were practical planning objects – a decision Birkenstock called “a missed opportunity to protect intellectual property”.

Once the company’s shoes were not considered cool, but in recent years they have become extremely popular, and have gained more attention after the actress Margot Robbie Wear a pink couple in the final scene of 2023’s successful Barbie movie. Sandals, which have a landscaped sole, have been praised for their comfort and robustness, and many color and style options have evolved from the original version with leather strap 1960s.

Although originally rejected by catwalks, it soon became the object of fashion, distracting the super model’s approval stamp Kate moss In the 1990s, and even appeared on celebrities at the Oscars. The company was finally imported to the New York Stock Exchange in 2023 and its value was valued at about $ 8.6 billion – twice its value in 2021.

“We continue our fight against imitation” says Birkenstock

Birkenstocks’ popularity means that opponents often sell their imitations, which has prompted the company to claim to protect what it called “emblematic planning”.

In this case, Birkenstock appealed to the courts against three manufacturers and retailers, seeking to protect four of its plans.

German legislation distinguishes between drawing and art when it comes to a product. Design serves a practical purpose, while artwork must present a certain individual creativity. Art is covered by the protection of copyright, which lasts 70 years after the creator’s death, while the protection of designs lasts 25 years after the deposition was made.

The shoemaker Karl Birkenstock, born in the 1930s, is still alive. Since some of his sandals no longer enjoy a plan protection, the company attempted to obtain copyright protection by seeking to characterize its footwear as an art.

But the claim was “unfounded,” said President Thomas Koch. His decision added that in order to protect intellectual property rights, “a degree of planning that shows individuality must be achieved.”

Birkenstock said in a statement that she “continues her fight against copyists with undiminished courage”, exhausting “all legal means to defend herself against imitations.” This ruling of the federal court, Germany’s Supreme Court of Justice, is the final ruling, which comes after two inferior courts who had heard the case and disagreed on the matter.

The first ruled in favor of Birkenstock, and the second overthrew the decision.