When a foreign legal person initiates a proceeding in Taiwan (Republic of China), questions often arise from the fundamental issue of which law should govern how a representative of the foreign legal person and the scope of his/her representation should be defined, and who has the right to initiate the proceeding or to execute a power of attorney. Whether such issue should be decided in accordance with the Company Act or the Civil Code of Taiwan or with the relevant laws of the home country of that foreign legal person is crucial in practice, but the opinions within the field are quite controversial.

In a trademark opposition case, in which the plaintiff argued that since the intervenor was a foreign legal person (an American legal person) and the signatory of the power of the attorney was not the legal representative of that legal person, it should be deemed that such signatory had no right to execute the power of attorney on behalf of the legal person, the Intellectual Property Court ("IP Court") held in its Judgment No. 100-Xing-Shang-Su-20 that such disputes should be decided according to the laws of the home country of that legal person by citing the Law Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Cases Involving Foreign Matters.

The IP Court also pointed out, "According to Article 10-1 of the Act Governing the Application of Laws to Civil Cases Involving Foreign Matters, the disposing capability of a person shall be subject to the laws of his/her home country. According to Article 10 of the same Act, the form of a legal act shall be decided by laws applicable to such act; provided, that if the legal act is done in a form stipulated by the lex loci actus, it shall also be valid; where the act is done at different places, the form of the act taken according to any of the lex loci actus shall be deemed valid. As to the question on whether an agent ad litem can legally represent the party of the proceedings is a matter of private law and should be decided based on the laws applicable thereto. In consequence, in respect of proceedings initiated by a US-based company in Taiwan, the questions on whether such company enjoys the personality of a legal person and on the organization, authority, disposing capability and responsibility of the company should be decided based on the Company Law of the USA."

The IP Court further explained that the intervenor was a company residing in New York, USA, so the determination of who has the right to execute the opposition application or the power of attorney to launch a suit on the intervenor's behalf should certainly comply with the laws of New York, USA. According to Section 715(g) of Article 7 of the New York Business Corporation Law, all officers as between themselves and the corporation shall have such authority and perform such duties in the management of the corporation as may be provided in the by-laws or, to the extent not so provided, by the board. The intervenor appointed the "officer" to execute the power of attorney during the board meetings held on 20 April 2007 and 16 April 2010, which can be evidenced by the meeting minutes enclosed with the court's files. Since the signatory shown on the intervenor's power of attorney is the officer that has been appointed and authorized by the intervenor's board of directors to handle relevant matters on its behalf, he/she certainly has the authority to execute such instrument on the intervenor's behalf in accordance with the laws of New York, USA.