B Brands are used to identify or recognize the origin of goods and services. There are many factors that trigger trademark disputes, one of which is trademark disputes which in the trial violate article 88 paragraph (1) of Law No. 20 of 2016. The problem raised in this research is how the judge's legal considerations in examining and deciding the trademark case between PT Supra Teratai Metal and PT Wiharta Prametal and what are the legal consequences if the cassation application for a trademark dispute between PT Supra Teratai Metal and PT Wiharta Prametal is decided beyond the cassation period based on Law No. 20 of the Year 2016 concerning Brands and Geographical Indications. The type of research used in this research is normative law, data processing is carried out qualitatively, the nature of the research is descriptive and conclusions are drawn deductively. The results of this research were that the panel of judges canceled the Surabaya Commercial Court's decision and granted the cassation application because in the process of examining the cassation application, the panel of judges found that the Defendant's trademark had not been officially registered, therefore, juridically, the cassation applicant is the official right holder for the trademark. registered trademark. In the next problem, namely trademark disputes that are decided beyond the stipulation period based on Law No. 20 of 2016, namely article 88 paragraph (8), which states that the examination hearing and decision on the cassation application must be completed no later than 90 (ninety) days after the date of the cassation application. accepted by the cassation panel. However, the cassation application was examined and decided for approximately 325 days, and this certainly violated the provisions of the law.