Article 3 of the Act Number 20 of 2016 concerning Trademarks and Geographical Indications adopts a constitutive system, which normatively places registration as the sole source of the birth of exclusive rights to a trademark. However, in reality, a significant gap is found because the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DJKI) often issues rejection decisions that are formalistic in nature, as evidenced by the high number of appeal applications granted by the Trademark Appeal Commission (KBM). This indicates legal uncertainty for good-faith trademark applicants. The method used is normative juridical legal research with a statutory approach, a case approach (20 KBM decisions in 2025), and a normative comparative approach. The research is also supported by interviews with senior KBM examiners and IP practitioners as supplementary material. This research aims to explain the position of KBM within the constitutional system, the application of its authority, and the comparison of DJKI and KBM decisions in legal efforts for trademark registration in Indonesia. The research results show that KBM is positioned as a quasi-judicial institution with a secondary constitutive function authorized to correct DJKI's decisions. This is evidenced in Decision Number 158/KBM/HKI/2025 (trademark "Citra Warna Abadi") where KBM annulled DJKI's rejection because the applicant and the owner of the compared trademark are the same party, and in Decision Number 180/KBM/HKI/2025 (trademark "ULTRA") where KBM partially granted the appeal because not all goods are of the same type. The comparison of decisions reveals three patterns of DJKI's rejections and three patterns of KBM's corrections. KBM conducts a thorough re-examination (meritum review). The comparison of decisions uncovers three patterns of DJKI's rejections (class similarity without a similarity test, superficial identification of dominant elements, assumption of bad faith without evidence) and three patterns of KBM's corrections (contextual correction of goods/services similarity, holistic correction of the interpretation of similarity in essence, and correction of factual/legal errors).