Not all the latex stories we mine and munch about here are about a sly new latex bodysuit or a glove accessory. And although we’ll surely chase a Lady Gaga or a Timothée Chalamet when they wear something unusually alternative (especially if what they are wearing is made of latex), sometimes it is the day-to-day, more utilitarian use of our favorite textile, that makes the news and passes our notice.
And in the case below, latex is even part (and we do mean ‘part’) of a court case.
A German court has just ruled that Birkenstock sandals, made of cork and latex soles, are not works of art. On the surface of things, this might be a strange distinction to have to adjudicate, but Birkenstock brought its case for copywrite distinction to the court two years ago with the hope of stopping three of its competitors from selling sandals very much like their famous footwear. If the court had ruled that Birkenstock sandals, which had begun selling in 1774 (who knew?) were indeed works of art, then their sandals could be afforded stricter copyright protections.
Competitors could have been kept from nudging too close to the winning design formula.
But the Federal Court of Justice in Karlsruhe, siding with a lower court judgement cast earlier, stated: “For copyright protection to apply, there must be such a degree of design that the product displays some individuality,” and that Birkenstock’s specific, “Pure craftsmanship using formal design elements” was not enough to grant them work-of-art status.
Birkenstock spokesman Jochen Gutzy, said after the verdict, and still defending his company’s bringing the case to court, “We want to ensure that copycats can no longer make money at the expense of our brand.”
Surely, a popular brand of footwear any company would want to emulate, we see Birkenstock sandals (again with their part latex souls, we mustn’t forget!) out and about everywhere. Even in the movie Barbie, Margot Robbie flipped off her heels for a pink pair of the famous sandals.
