The German Federal Court of Justice’s decision in Birkenstock makes a pivotal contribution to the post-Cofemel landscape of national case law, reaffirming and reconfiguring the criteria for copyright protection of works of applied art within the European Union (EU) framework. Rejecting protection for the Birkenstock sandal designs in question, the Court grounded its reasoning on the absence of demonstrable creative choices, framing originality around the author’s intellectual input, rather than aesthetic considerations, cultural relevance, or commercial recognition. Importantly, the Federal Court of Justice retained legacy terminology such as “artistic achievement” while arguably interpreting it through the lens of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and suggesting a reconciliatory model between German jurisprudence and EU law. The judgment emphasises the evidentiary burden placed on claimants to substantiate the exercise of creative freedom and, in doing so, recalibrates enforcement strategies – particularly in design-driven industries like fashion. Rather than signalling a substantive shift in legal foundations, Birkenstock presents a strategic reinterpretation of established national terminology in light of EU harmonisation. Such an approach offers a case study in how national courts respond to supranational standards, while retaining traces of their legal heritage.