The existence of the unaccomodating regulation on trademark as bank guaranty: from a justice value perspective

Dental caries is the leading dental problem of Trademark has so called economic right which is right toreceiveeconomic benefits of the trademark owned by the owner of trademark. With such economic right; therefore, ideally, trademark should be able to provide financial benefits and should also be used as the object of bank guaranty. However, trademark still does not have an adequate arrangement as a guaranty in Indonesia. Hence this article discusses more deeply on the existence of Indonesian Law No. 20 of 2016 on Trademark and Geographical Indication (Trademark and GI Law) which does not seem to accommodate trademark as fiduciary guaranty from the perspective of the value of justice. This is a normative legal research which uses statute, conceptual and analytical approaches. The results show that the implications of the existence of Trademark and GI Law which does not seem to accommodate trademark as fiduciary guaranty from the perspective of the value of justice in the perspective of the justice and utility values are: (1) absence of justice for entrepreneurs as the owners of trademark because their rights as trademark owners are not fully recognized; (2)stakeholders cannot enjoy the benefits of trademark rights as bank guaranty; and (3) trademark has not received adequate protection due to the absence of comprehensive juridical support and has no clear legal certainty in terms of the legality of trademark as guaranty in bank or other financial institutions.