| 英文摘要 |
We will start this research from the inevitable result to the effect that the investment of industrial and commercial property rights via its pledging has become a fact that cannot be denied. However, the pledge of such rights independently of pledging the business premises, although useful, may lead to some difficulties in terms of the nature of this pledge, or the law applicable to its pledge agreements due to its special nature. Based on the brief provisions wherein legislators dealt with the subject of the pledge of these rights in the Guarantee of the Movables Rights Law No. 20 for 2018 and the regulation of Transfer, Mortgage and Seizure of the Trademark No. 55 for 2014, we will raise a question of the extent of this law and regulation empowerment to solve these practical problems which accompany the pledge of these rights. And whether the general rules related to the civil or commercial pledge are sufficient to be applied on such confidential and important rights? To answer the above-mentioned questions, this article provides a critical analytical methodology. As a result, the findings of the study indicate that the possessory pledge is not appropriate to the industrial and commercial property rights and the cancellation of the law on Placement of Movable Assets as Security for Debt and being replaced by the Guarantee of the Movables Rights Law removed the industrial and commercial property rights outside the security mortgage. Therefore, regulating the pledge of the industrial and commercial property rights in a special legislation is a must. |
本站僅提供期刊文獻檢索。
