Rulings of the BGH from February 20, 2025 – Case Nos.: I ZR 16/24; I ZR 17/24; I ZR 18/24
The manufacturer of a specific type of sandal cannot claim copyright protection for its sandals. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled on this matter in three cases on February 20, 2025 (Case Nos.: I ZR 16/24; I ZR 17/24; I ZR 18/24).
The design of the sandals in question is well known. A registered design can only be protected for a maximum of 25 years. Copyright protection, on the other hand, lasts for 70 years after the creator’s death. Therefore, the manufacturer attempted to secure copyright protection for its sandals as works of applied art. However, according to the business law firm MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte, which advises on IP and copyright law, copyright protection only applies if the work demonstrates a certain level of creative originality.
The BGH did not find the required level of originality for applied art in the sandal models in question.
Sandals Are Not Works of Applied Art
The plaintiff in the case was the manufacturer of certain sandal models. The company filed lawsuits against other companies that produce and distribute similar sandals, alleging a violation of copyright law. The plaintiff sought an injunction, disclosure of information, damages, as well as a recall and destruction of the sandals.
The Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Cologne had already denied copyright protection for the sandals as works of applied art in its ruling of January 26, 2024 (Case No.: 6 U 85/23). The BGH has now dismissed the plaintiff’s appeals and confirmed that the sandals do not qualify as works of applied art under Section 2(1)(4), (2) of the German Copyright Act (UrhG).
Work Must Exhibit a Sufficient Degree of Creativity
The judges in Karlsruhe explained that copyright protection requires a degree of creative freedom that has been artistically utilized. If a design is determined by technical requirements, rules, or other constraints, free and creative expression is excluded.
For a work of applied art to be protected under copyright law, it must, like all other works, exhibit a sufficient degree of creativity. Purely technical craftsmanship and the use of formal design elements do not fall under copyright protection, according to the BGH. To enjoy copyright protection, a work must reach a level of originality that demonstrates individuality. Anyone claiming copyright protection must also prove that this level of originality has been achieved. In the view of the Karlsruhe judges, the plaintiff failed to do so.
No Recognizable Artistic Creativity
The design features presented by the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the available creative scope had been used artistically to the extent required for copyright protection. The BGH emphasized that the OLG Cologne had already correctly recognized this legal principle.
Unlike design protection, works of applied art must exhibit artistic creativity, and their design must not merely follow functionality.
Copyright Protection Against Imitations
Because copyright protection lasts for 70 years after the creator’s death, it serves as an effective tool against imitations. Everyday objects such as shoes can, in principle, qualify as works of applied art and enjoy copyright protection. However, as the BGH ruling illustrates, a recognizable artistic concept must be evident in the design. The decision further clarifies that manufacturers should not rely on copyright law to protect their products from imitation after the expiration of design protection.
For a work to enjoy copyright protection, it must be the result of personal intellectual creation. While the requirements for originality are not excessively high, not every personal creation qualifies for copyright protection. The BGH ruling underscores that a sufficient level of creativity must be evident for everyday objects to be protected as works of applied art.
MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte advises on copyright law and other IP law matters.
Feel free to contact us!
