Slowing down and mitigating the impact of climate change necessitates changes to individual behaviour in a multitude of realms. While reducing resource waste in the production process and consuming less are essential, it is also necessary to increase resource reuse with both effective re- and upcycling. However, relatively little is known about the determinants of upcycling behaviour. In this chapter, the literature on the identified psychological and social drivers is reviewed. A broader reading of behavioural determinants for green behaviour change is used to outline possible pathways for behaviour change still untested in a scientific setting in the context of upcycling. The chapter concludes with a critical review on the relative impact of both up- and recycling compared to their perceived effectiveness. Potential ways increase the likelihood of effective reuse while also reducing overall resource use are considered from a social norms perspective.

This chapter discusses whether the existing IP laws in Europe offer sufficient room for upcycling from the perspective of fundamental rights. It is argued that both the EU Charter and the ECHR may include obligations to facilitate the innovative reuse of materials. This is considered both as a matter of artistic freedom and as a positive obligation to safeguard the right to life, health, and a sustainable environment. From this perspective, existing IP laws may not be accommodating enough of creative and innovative upcycling practices. It is suggested that, as a matter of direct effect of primary EU law, both the Charter and free movement of goods may have a limiting effect on the enforceability of IP rights.

Upcycling, the creative reuse of pre-existing materials, offers clear environmental benefits by reducing waste and conserving resources, while also promoting sustainable consumption. However, despite its potential, consumer understanding of upcycling remains limited, with many either unfamiliar with the term or conflating it with other sustainable practices. This conceptual ambiguity can undermine confidence in upcycled products, hinder market adoption, and pose challenges for businesses. The inclusion of branded materials in upcycled goods further complicates the landscape, raising legal and reputational concerns for trademark holders and prompting questions about consumer confusion and fairness. To investigate these issues, this chapter presents empirical insights from three studies involving 2,393 participants. Study 1 examines consumers’ understanding of upcycling. Study 2 explores how branded materials in upcycled products influence evaluations and manufacturer identification. Study 3 assesses the effect of different information about manufacturers on consumer perceptions and recall. Findings provide a foundation for considering the legality of trademark use in upcycling and inform strategies for promoting consumer awareness, supporting sustainable business models, and safeguarding both brand and consumer interests in the transition from a linear to a circular economy.

Upcycling describes the process of altering an existing product by modifying it, which in many instances involves improving it and consequently giving a new lease of life to a pre-existing product. It has been increasingly recognized as a promising way to reduce material and energy use, and to promote sustainable production and consumption. Alongside this, there is an increasing customer preference towards environmentally friendly products and minimal waste. Unsurprisingly, upcycling has received considerable attention, particularly in discussion about the circular economy. However, upcycling also poses a challenge to businesses looking to control their IP rights, particularly those seeking to protect their brand and control their reputation through IP protections. This chapter explores these issues, with particular reference to trademark and copyright law in the Pacific region.

This chapter develops a conceptual framework for understanding the Right to Repair (R2R) and its intersection with upcycling within contemporary intellectual property and sustainability discourse. It argues that the right to repair encompasses both negative and positive rights: the former protecting individual freedom from interference in repairing owned goods (‘freedom to repair’), and the latter requiring institutional and manufacturer support to ensure ‘repairability’. These differing conceptions manifest in contrasting policy models. Decentralized, market-oriented approaches in the US emphasizing ownership and autonomy, and centralized, circular economy frameworks in the EU prioritizing product design, durability, and extended producer responsibility.

Traditional Knowledge (TK) refers to any knowledge that results from intellectual activity in a traditional context. In addition to knowledge, TK may include practices, skills, and innovations. It embodies the traditional lifestyles of Indigenous peoples and local communities, and is passed down through the generations. As it has been pointed out, it is a living body of knowledge that is developed, sustained, and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity. As such, it is not easily protected by the current IP system, which typically grants protection for a limited period to inventions and original works by named individuals or companies. The chapter reflects on the different ways in which TK can be protected through IP, and its importance and value in an economic context which encourages sustainable practices. Finally, an analysis is given of the extent to which TK may be affected by the practice of upcycling and if (as it happens with regard to other IP rights as trademarks) there is a conflict between them.

This chapter analyzes the marketing of upcycled products from a perspective of European and German unfair competition law. As part of the sustainability trend, some traders use upcycled products to enhance their image or develop new business models. Marketing such products must not only comply with trademark law but also with unfair competition law rules. Under Articles 6, 7 UCP Directive, traders must not mislead consumers about a product’s commercial origin. When upcycling involves third-party products, consumers might wrongly assume the upcycled items come from the original producer, especially when both operate in similar markets. Clear information is therefore required to prevent confusion. If traders reference the original products in their advertising, the rules on comparative advertising under MCA Directive may apply, since even broadly interchangeable goods, like wine bottles upcycled into vases, can qualify as competitors. Additionally, German unfair competition law may restrict practices that exploit another trader’s reputation. For instance, using luxury goods to create everyday items could unlawfully damage the reputation of the original brand.

This chapter analyzes upcycling practices from the perspective of trademark law, verifying their compatibility under the functional approach governing such exclusive right, whose impact on trade is not going to diminish in the context of a contemporary market increasingly dominated by communicative and reputational logics of brands. The analysis refers to the new paradigm of the circular economy, within which upcycling tends to be included, in order to question whether this change of political horizon in the European production model may affect the lawfulness of such practices, similarly to what can be argued in light of EU case law for recycling and refurbishing practices. In this sense, correctness in product elaboration and presentation to the market, mirroring the actual positive (if not even sustainable) contribution of the upcycler, should play a decisive role to exclude trademark infringement. The analysis will further reflect upon the applicative side of this issue, questioning whether this permissive interpretation does not end up in a return to well-established ‘old-fashioned’ principles that, properly tailoring exclusivity according to a model of fair competition, offer a valuable counterbalance to the excesses of protection that the trademark evolution has long been suffering from, like other IP rights.

The move towards social innovation is gaining momentum with the UN’s post-2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Upcycling encourages social innovation by transforming discarded materials into value-added inventions, making them socially useful and sustainable in the long run. Conversely, patent laws protect inventions that meet specific criteria, such as novelty. Patent law not only safeguards new inventions but also covers new uses of existing products. While this can support social innovation as well, it may pose challenges for developing upcycled inventions. Although there are no standard approaches to upcycled and transformative uses under patent law in both the EU and the US, there is a growing body of cases laws on altered use of patented products that could have implications for value added transformation of existing inventions. This chapter explores the foundations of upcycling and its implications for patent law. In doing so, it examines the concept of ‘novelty’ as a requirement under patent law and its effect on upcycling. It further analyzes judicial discussions and case studies from a European and comparative perspective at the intersection of patent law and reconstructive uses, thereby highlighting the role of patent law in fostering social innovation.

Creativity and expression, the prominent driving forces behind the sustenance of the fashion industry, also imbibe within themselves the very structure of various forms of IP. However, while IP grants monopoly rights to the creator for a definite duration, fashion is dynamic. The rise of fashion upcycling has redefined the consumer as creator, thereby unfolding the debate between the rights of fashion brands on their IP and its possible infringement by creators of upcycled fashion. In this context, the chapter seeks to understand the relevant IP issues – creation, protection, and infringement surrounding the interface of fashion upcycling with IP. An analysis of the existing legal regime on fashion and IP in Asian jurisdictions, notably, India, China, Indonesia, Singapore, and Japan are made in reference to some notable juridical developments, in order to understand the preferred harmonious interpretation of fashion upcycling under IP adopted so far. The authors conclude with suggestions to mitigate infringement arising from this culture of upcycled fashion vis-à-vis IP rights in the fashion industry. The discussion proceeds in parallel with case studies involving reputed fashion brands raising concerns over possible violations of IP rights in the wake of the sustainable upcycled fashion culture.

Unless the Intellectual Property Protocol and its Annexes within the African Continental Free Trade Area succeed in establishing a unified framework, the IP landscape across Africa will remain fragmented and siloed. This is demonstrated by the existence of two separate regional IP organizations operating along the Francophone/Anglophone divide – the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) and the African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) – alongside the national laws of ARIPO Member States, and to some extent OAPI, as well as eight subregional economic communities and countries that are not members of either organization. Therefore, the framework for the doctrine of exhaustion in Africa is a patchwork and somewhat disjointed, much like the overall IP landscape. The chapter examines the complex norms governing copyright in Africa and argues that, until the Intellectual Property Protocol (which introduces a regional exhaustion framework) and its Annex on copyright are rectified and properly enforced, upcycling remains a neutral concept within copyright circles. This situation could generate uncertainty for upcycling initiatives or present an opportunity to revalue waste in ways that support the circular economy across Africa.

Copyright misuse is a defence to enforcement of a valid copyright. It applies when a copyright owner either licenses or enforces its copyright in an unacceptable matter. For example, a paradigmatic case of misuse involves a copyright owner who uses a copyright license to prevent the licensee from developing competing works. A rightsholder who has committed misuse is barred from enforcing its copyright against others – including third parties who were not the direct victims of the acts of misuse – while the acts of misuse continue. This chapter explores how the misuse defence might apply in cases of upcycling involving copyright-protected materials. Although the defence of copyright misuse as such exists mainly in the US, the analysis in the chapter can also prove relevant for other countries. First, the US misuse doctrine bears considerable similarity to the general notion of abuse of rights. Second, the US misuse doctrine also borrows heavily from monopoly (anti-trust) law. While there are important differences between US anti-trust law and monopoly laws in other countries, many of the basic situations are treated the same. The discussion of the US misuse doctrine can therefore inform countries that might want to deal with upcycling situations.