This research aims at examining how the regulator can make regulation to optimize financing implementation with YouTube content as a collateral. This research is considered necessary, because besides Government Regulation Number 24 Year 2022 which becomes the basis to give financing under an intellectual property as a collateral, banking institutions might still be in doubt to implement such a financing scheme due to many weak supporting regulations. This research is conducted with a normative-juridical approach method. The research shows that there are still many regulations which have not accommodated the financing implementation of intellectual property-based financing scheme basis, especially those regulations related to valuation, recognition of intellectual property as a banking asset and execution of intellectual property when a debtor default. The weak regulation of these three aspects makes financial institutions doubtful to implement the intellectual property-based financing especially because bank activities are to collect and distribute funds to the society. The conclusions of this research show that basically there has been a method or way to anticipate the three problems, but it needs to be legalized in a form of regulation so that the bank has legal certainty and protection in its financing with intellectual property as the collateral. The regulators are supposed to be able to create regulation to optimize financing implementation with intellectual property as the collateral.

There are provisions regarding trademarks that cannot be registered in Law No. 20 Year 2016, one of which is in Article 20 letter f which states that "Trademarks cannot be registered if they are common names and/or symbols of public property." However, even though there is already a regulation regarding the invalidity of registration of the use of common words in trademarks, there are still many uses of common words as trademarks in Indonesia. This shows that there is still a lack of clarity regarding the parameters of acceptable use of generic words in trademark registration. One of the famous trademark infringement cases using a common word in Indonesia is the case between PT Unilever Indonesia, Tbk. against Hardwood Private Limited with the alleged use of the "STRONG" Trademark with the Supreme Court Decision Number 332 K/Pdt.Sus- IPR/2021. This research aims to discuss the legal action in the settlement of infringement of well-known trademarks that use the word general and the judge's consideration of infringement of well-known trademarks that use the word general based on Indonesian positive law. Based on the research results, the word "STRONG" is an English word that has a strong meaning. Then the word STRONG is a general or generic word that when referring to the explanation in Article 20 of Law No. 20 Year 2016, the word "STRONG" should not be registered as a trademark because it is a common word