IVIR

Climate change has forced legal systems to question many of their long-standing assumptions, including the largely linear logic that continues to underpin intellectual property (IP) law. Existing scholarship has convincingly shown that copyright and trade mark laws often hinder circular practices such as repair and upcycling, prompting calls for greater flexibility or the ‘greenification’ of IP law. This article challenges a key premise of those proposals: that upcycling is inherently environmentally beneficial. The environmental value of upcycling is neither uniform nor self-evident, and in some contexts may be marginal or even adverse. This uncertainty raises a normative question: should accommodation of upcycling under IP law depend on demonstrated environmental benefit, or does upcycling embody a wider social value warranting protection irrespective of ecological impact? The article argues for the latter, developing a justificatory framework grounded not primarily in environmental sustainability, but in artistic freedom and cultural diversity. On this account, environmental benefits – where present – serve as reinforcing considerations rather than the foundation for legal reform. Building on this reframing, the article reassesses concerns about free-riding on IP holders’ rights and argues for a more calibrated balance between upcycling practices and the protection of legitimate IP interests. It then examines how this balance might be realised within existing EU IP law, focusing on the underexplored potential of the quotation exception in copyright law and the ‘due cause’ defence in trade mark law. By repositioning these defences within the sustainability discourse, the article seeks to broaden the tools available to courts and policymakers for aligning IP law with the social value of upcycling.