The Institutional Dilemma of the Missing Guarantee Function in Geographical Indication Trademark Pledge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202514312

Author(s)

Han Sha

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Abstract

As a unique intellectual property right connecting regional natural and cultural resources with industrial economy, geographical indication trademarks (GI trademarks) play a significant role in promoting regional economic development. Article 123 of the Civil Code explicitly incorporates geographical indications into the category of intellectual property objects, while Article 440 provides the institutional framework for trademark pledge, thereby bringing GI trademarks within the scope of rights pledge. However, their inherent attributes—the separation of the registrant’s management rights from the user’s usage rights, and their intrinsic linkage to natural and cultural factors of origin—create substantial inherent risks. Undoubtedly, improving supporting measures can promote the GI trademark pledge business, but the core impediment lies precisely in these excessive intrinsic risks. This paper critically re-examines the value orientation of current practices and the legal system governing GI trademark pledges, explicitly informs financial institutions like banks of the involved risks, and provides creditors with sufficient preemptive risk warnings. It proposes rational suggestions to achieve a balance between legal logic and market demand.

Keywords

Separation of Proprietary Incidents; Pledge of Rights; Realization of the Pledgee’s Right; Risk Prevention and Mitigation; Subrogation in Rem

References

[1] Yi, Q. Y. (2005). On Certification Marks. Intellectual Property, (06), 16 - 20. [2] Long, S. J., & Zhang, K. S. (2025). Obstacles and Solutions to Financing by Pledge of Geographical Indication Trademarks. Journal of Tongling University, 24(01), 66 - 70. [3] Wang, L. F. (2005). Conception of Formulating China’s Geographical Indication Protection Law. Law Science, (05), 69 - 74. [4] Liu, C. L. (2014). Research on the Suitability of Subject Matter for Intellectual Property Pledge. Journal of Hebei University of Science and Technology (Social Sciences), 14(02), 43 - 50. [5] Wang, C. M. (2009). Private Right Protection and Model Selection of Geographical Indications in China. Northern Legal Science, 3(05), 95 - 102. [6] Shan, P. J., & Peng, C. X. (2015). Civil Law Disputes in the Study of “State Ownership”. SJTU Law Review, (02), 34 - 58. [7] Wang, S. (2009). Collective Exclusivity and Individual Commonality: Rights Allocation in the Geographical Indication System. Market Modernization, (04), 293 - 294. [8] Tao, L. Q., Chen, L. G., & Wei, C. Y. (2011). Legal Risks and Countermeasures in Utilizing the Guarantee Value of Trademark Rights. Intellectual Property, (01), 33 - 37. [9] Dong, X. L. (2024). On the Origin and Future Direction of “Pledge of Right”. Rule of Law Research, (2), 126–134. [10] Joint Research Group of Zhejiang Provincial High People’s Court. (2023). Research Report on Judicial Protection of Geographical Indication Trademarks. People’s Judicature, (28), 60–68+1. [11]Guo, Q. Y. (2023). Reshaping the Circulation Value of Intellectual Property in the Pledge Financing System. Guandong Academic Journal, (01), 29 - 39. [12]Si, W. (2024). Rethinking the Improvement of the Subrogation System for Security Interests in the Civil Code Era. Rule of Law Research, (2), 111–125. [13]Chen, S. (2022). Normative Interpretation and Legal Continuation of Rules for Licensing Pledged Intellectual Property. Journal of Southwest Minzu University (Humanities and Social Science Edition), 43(07), 75 - 82. [14]Zhang, S. H., & Li, M. J. (2022). On the Realization of “Proceeds” Subrogation in the Transfer of Chattel Subject to Mortgage. Social Sciences, (02), 95 – 105.