| Abstrakt: |
Despite of the settling for several years in the Romanian legislation of the regulation giving the creditor the opportunity to regulate the enforcement of the debtor's obligation, the holder of a trademark, in the manner of the legal seizure of the trademark directly from the estate of the latter - the provisions of art. 40 para. (2) of the Law no. 84/1998 on trademarks and geographical indications, the creditors completely ignore this option as they are not able to anticipate its multiple advantages. The legal seizure of a strong trademark known among consumers - the recipients of the goods or services which the trademark is associated to, confers the creditor seeking enforcement a true mean of enforcing the debtor in the voluntary and immediate execution of its duty. The latter is threatened with the loss of the right to use the trademark in its trade activity, a trademark that it had made famous in time with significant costs and making continuous effort. The manner in which the legislator intended to outline the text of art. 40 para. (2) of the Law no. 84/1998 suggests indirectly that the trademark rights can be enforced ut singuli, distinctly from the goodwill in which they are included, and the legal nature of the concept of trademark determine the means of enforcement whose procedures have to be followed in order to achieve the ultimate goal - recovery of the claim: the indirect. movable enforcement, by sale at auction of the trademark rights, after its evaluation by a judicial technical expert in the matter of the industrial property rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
