Assumed Business Names

ORS 648.135
Effect of violation of ORS 648.007

  • damages and attorney fees
  • effect on other laws


(1)

A person who carries on, conducts or transacts business in violation of ORS 648.007 (Requirement to register assumed business name and service mark) shall lack standing before the courts of this state to maintain a cause of action for the benefit of the business. The person may cure the incapacity at any time by complying with ORS 648.007 (Requirement to register assumed business name and service mark). Nothing in this section shall extend any statute of limitations.

(2)

In any action or suit in which the cause of action arises out of business that the defendant carried on, conducted or transacted in violation of ORS 648.007 (Requirement to register assumed business name and service mark), the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover $500 or the actual costs that the court determines that the plaintiff reasonably incurred to ascertain the real and true name of the defendant, whichever is greater. The court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this subsection.

(3)

Except as provided in this section, nothing in this chapter shall abrogate or limit the law as to unfair competition or unfair trade practices or derogate from the common law, the principles of equity or the statutes of this state or of the United States with respect to the right to acquire and to protect trade names. [1985 c.728 §93; 1987 c.390 §1; 1995 c.454 §12; 1995 c.618 §106]

Notes of Decisions

Under Former Similar Statute (Ors 648.090)

Where contract was signed in individual capacity and complaint brought in name of plaintiffs as individuals, complaint allegation that plaintiffs operated under assumed business name did not allow barring action based on lack of registration. Denlinger v. Hutchinson, 46 Or App 725, 613 P2d 76 (1980), Sup Ct review denied

In General

Evidence supported trial court's conclusion that plaintiff was not conducting business under unregistered assumed business name and thus possessed standing to maintain cause of action. Mary's River Lumber Co. v. Sullivan, 95 Or App 360, 768 P2d 939 (1989), Sup Ct review denied

Chapter 648

Notes of Decisions

Where plaintiff adduced ample testimony of confusing similarity of assumed business names, and defendants conceded that they did not begin doing business under their earlier-registered assumed name for approximately 12 years after its registration and approximately 9 years after plaintiff registered its similar name, judgment enjoining defendants from use of earlier-registered similar name was affirmed. Woodburn Const. v. Gen. Development, 53 Or App 349, 632 P2d 23 (1981)

Since purpose of this chapter is to protect public and not private rights, defendant was not entitled to injunction preventing plaintiff from using assumed business name. Photo & Sound Co. v. Corvallis, 291 Or 105, 628 P2d 733 (1981)

Law Review Citations

62 OLR 151 (1983)


Source

Last accessed
Jun. 26, 2021