On Thursday, the federal court of justice in Karlsruhe, Germany, ruled that Birkenstocks were not “copyrighted works of applied art,” making it harder for the 251-year-old German shoemaker to combat the widespread sale of duplicates of its sandals across the internet.

A German court ruling has found that the famous Birkenstock shoe does not meet the legal definition of "applied art," ending a legal battle.

A German court is putting its foot down. Birkenstocks are not art. Birkenstocks are cool enough for influencers, Hollywood stars and even Barbie — but they do not qualify as art, Germany’s top court ruled Thursday.

Can the well-known footwear be considered art? That’s the question Germany’s Federal Court of Justice had to wrestle with.

Federal Court of Justice rules Birkenstock is not entitled to damages from cut-price imitators of its footwear.

Celebrities have long embraced Birkenstock sandals, with stars like Katie Holmes, Gigi Hadid, and Reese Witherspoon often seen wearing the iconic summer footwear. The brand’s reputation for quality, comfort,

There’s no question a large amount of artistry goes into fashion design, including footwear. But a German court may have just set a precedent on whether such work can be legally protected. This week, the court ruled that Birkenstocks fail to meet the legal definition of art.

In a lawsuit, Birkenstock aimed to combat knockoffs, but the court determined the German footwear does not meet the definition of “applied art.”

Birkenstock sandals, which have evolved from a symbol of counterculture to a trendy fashion item, do not qualify as art and are therefore not protected by copyright, Germany's highest civil court ruled on Thursday.

Can Birkenstock sandals be considered art? That's what Germany's Federal Court of Justice had to decide on Thursday, and it ruled they're just comfy footwear.