- -civil disputes, particularly trademark disputes, frequently involve specific challenges, especially in relation to the burden of proof and the admissibility of evidence presented before the court. this issue is reflected in decision no. 121/pdt.sus-merek/2023/pn niaga.jkt.pst. this study addresses two main research questions: first, the conformity of the evidentiary process in trademark cancellation involving disputes between foreign and local trademarks as examined in decision no. 121/pdt.sus-merek/2023/pn niaga.jkt.pst; and second, the validity of the evidence used in the trademark cancellation case concerning foreign and local trademark disputes in the same decision.the research employs a normative legal research method with a descriptive nature, using a statutory approach and a case approach. the results of this study indicate that the trademark cancellation in decision no. 121/pdt.sus-merek/2023/pn niaga.jkt.pst does not conform to the civil procedural evidentiary process as stipulated in article 1865 of the indonesian civil code and article 164 of the hir, as it was not supported by sufficiently substantial evidence to prove the existence of bad faith on the part of the defendant. the evidence presented was classified as documentary evidence in accordance with article 1866 of the indonesian civil code, article 164 of the hir, and article 284 of the rbg; however, its validity depends on the evidentiary process applied. although the evidence in the trademark cancellation case under decision no. 121/pdt.sus-merek/2023/pn niaga.jkt.pst is administratively valid and fulfills the formal requirements as evidence, it remains limited in its ability to adequately illustrate competition between foreign and local trademarks.