民國90年11月公司法修正後，公司法對於公司名稱使用之規範'已不及於仿冒影射等公司名稱之冒濫使用。有關公司名稱冒濫使用之不公平競爭行為防止，乃以公平交易法為主要規範。 公平交易法與公司法就公司名稱使用之規範，在規範目的、規範程度、規範對象、規範發動時期及規範方法上皆有不同，故使用依公司法核准登記之公司名稱之行為，若符合公平交易法第20條第l項第l款、第2款之規定，即係抵觸公平交易法立法意旨之不公平競爭行為，自不得依公平交易法第46條規定，主張優先適用公司法之規定，而認為係正當權利之行使。 另一方面，公司名稱較之公平交易法第20條所定之其他表徵，具有公司名稱以登記為必要;公司名稱僅限於文字，且僅限於我國文字之特性。故公司之英文名稱，並不具備法律上「公司名稱」之意義。公司名稱有無相同或類似之使用，應就「字形」、「發音」、「概念」三要素為綜合判斷。惟公平交易委員會訂頒之「處理公平交易法第20條案件原則」第14點第l項規定「二公司名稱中標明不同業務種類者，其公司名稱非本法第20條所稱之相同或類似之使用。」就公司名稱冒濫 使用行為之能否適用公平交易法第20條，造成極大限制，應予廢止。 此外，就藉由公司名稱不當使用所為之不公平競爭行為，若能認定構成公平交易法第20條之違反，即應優先適用第20條論處，僅於不能認定構成第20條之違反時，始考慮得否依第21條或第24條論處。

In November 2001, Taiwan’s Congress (the Legislative Yuan) amended the Corporate Law by restricting its jurisdiction over corporate names to the registration of such names only. In light of this change, the use of a corporate name that may be considered misleading to consumers shall no longer be regulated by the Corporate Law. Instead, any potential confusion over the use of a corporate name shall be determined by the Fair Trade Law. The question that remains unresolved, however, is whether the Fair Trade Law and its relevant regulation that governs such possible confusion is able to effectively deal with such cases. After such an amendment, even if a company registers its corporate name pursuant to the Corporate Law, such registration per se shall not make that company immune to the jurisdiction of the Fair Trade Law. Should the use of that corporate name be in violation of § 20(1) (i) & (ii) of the Fair Trade Law, the Fair Trade Law shall still apply. The corporate Law shall have no preemptive power over the Fair Trade Law pursuant to§ 46 of the Fair Trade Law. Now that the Corporate Law has rescinded its control over the use of corporate names, if the Fair Trade Commission does not amend its relevant regulation, it will probably not be able to resolve any issues with respect to confusion over the use of corporate names, but rather, it could even create more disputes in this regard. We therefore argue that the Commission should amend the regulation that governs the use of potentially confusing corporate names in order to cope with any new challenges posed by the shift in regulatory power. In addition, we further advocate that when faced with an issue that pertains to any possible confusion over a corporate name, the authority should apply § 20 of the Fair Trade Law first. Only in the event that § 20 cannot be applied, should the authority consider applying §§ 21 or 24 of the Law.