在优化营商环境的大背景下，《民法典》借鉴了以《美国统一商法典》为代表的功能主义担保观，第641条在继受《合同法》第134条的基础上为所有权保留增加了登记对抗条款。结合《民法典》第388条第1款所规定的“其他具有担保功能的合同”以及中国人民银行征信中心为所有权保留所建立的动产融资登记系统，所有权保留的担保功能得到强化。然而现有的研究多集中在物权领域整体的登记对抗规则且多以动产抵押权的登记对抗研究为典型，所有权保留自身的登记对抗应作何理解，有进一步的研究空间。本文首先通过对《民法典》中所有权保留登记对抗的立法目的探讨，论证出所有权保留担保功能强化之体现。分析了所有权保留在动产融资登记系统中的登记不具有设权效力、权利推定效力与公信力，其仅具有警示的功能以及为确定冲突权利优先顺位提供独立客观的证据功能。对抗的含义指所有权保留与其他权利相互冲突时的排序问题，所有权保留能否对抗债权不能一概而论。其次对所有权保留的性质进行界定。所有权保留的担保功能虽得到强化，但是保留卖主保留的所有权并未彻底功能化为担保物权，其仍然是标的物的所有权人。将保留卖主对标的物的所有权解释为担保物权不符合我国现行的民法体系。最后，在保留买主占有标的物的情形下，保留买主在对标的物向第三人进行处分时，会使得保留卖主保留的所有权与第三人的权利发生冲突。保留所有权与抵押权、质权、留置权冲突时，涉及《民法典》416条“超级优先权规则”和第414条、415条的规则适用。保留所有权与标的物的买受人所有权和租赁权冲突时，保留所有权无论登记与否，不得对抗正常经营活动中的买受人；在保留所有权未登记的情形下，其不得对抗标的物的善意买受人和善意承租人。保留所有权与查封、扣押债权和破产债权冲突时，在执行领域，保留所有权即使未登记，保留卖主也可以执行异议，排除执行，司法实务亦是如此，只是以保留买主是否支付标的物总价款的百分之七十五做以区分；在破产领域，所有权保留的标的物不属于保留买主的破产财产，保留所有权未登记，也可以对抗保留买主的破产债权人。

In the context of optimizing the business environment, the Chinese Civil Code has transplanted the security philosophy of functionalism represented by the American Uniform Commercial Code and has added a registration confrontation clause to the ownership reservation on the basis of Article 134 of the Chinese Contract Law. Considering that other contracts with security functions has been stipulated in the Article 388 of the Civil Code stipulate and the ownership reservation can ben be registered in the Unified Registration and Publication System for Chattel Financing of the Credit Reference Center of the People's Bank of China, the security functions of ownership reservation have been expanded and strengthened. However, most of the existing research focuses on the registration confrontation as a whole in field of real rights and takes the chattel mortgage as a typical example. There is room for further research about the registration confrontation of the ownership reservation.Firstly, this paper discusses the legislation purpose of registration confrontation of ownership reservation and demonstrates the enhancement of the security function of the ownership reservation. And the registration of ownership reservation does not have the effect of establishing right, presumption of correctness of rights and public credibility. It only has the function of warning and providing independent and objective evidence for determining the priority of conflicting rights. The connotation of confrontation refers to the right sequence of ownership reservation and other rights conflicts. whether the creditor’s right can be confronted can not be generalized.Secondly, the nature of ownership reservation is defined. Although the security function of ownership reservation is strengthened, the ownership retained by the seller is not fully functionalized into a security right and the seller is still the owner of the subject matter. Interpreting the ownership of the subject matter retained by the seller as security right does not conform to our country’s current civil law system. Finally, when the buyer disposes of the subject matter to a third party, the retained ownership of the seller will conflict with the rights of the third party in the case of the buyer of the retention of title in possession of the subject matter. When the ownership retained by the seller conflicts with chattel mortgage, pledge, and lien, the super priorityrule of Article 416, Article 414, and Article 415of the Civil Code shall be applied. When the retained ownership of the seller conflicts with the ownership of the third party who buys the subject matter and lease right, the buyer in ordinary course of business can not be confronted, no matter whether the ownership reservation has been registered. and if it has not been registered, the buyer in bona fide and the leaseholder in bona fide can not be confronted. When the ownership retained by the seller conflicts with executive credit and bankruptcy creditor's rights, in the field of civil enforcement, even if the ownership retained by the seller has not been registered, the seller can still object the execution and the execution can be excluded. Judicial practice adopts the same approach, but it is distinguished by whether the buyer has paid 75% of the total price of the subject matter. And In the field of bankruptcy, the subject matter in an ownership-reserved transaction does not belong to the insolvent assets and the retention of title without registration can still be valid against the bankruptcy creditor.