Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.005 (2026)

Definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  417.005.  Definitions. — As used in sections 417.005 to 417.066, unless the text clearly indicates otherwise, the following terms mean:

  (1)  "Applicant", the person filing an application for registration of a trademark under sections 417.005 to 417.066, his legal representatives, successors or assigns;

  (2)  "Mark", any trademark or service mark entitled to registration under sections 417.005 to 417.066 whether registered or not;

  (3)  "Person", any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, union or other organization;

  (4)  "Registrant", the person to whom the registration of a trademark under sections 417.005 to 417.066 is issued, his legal representatives, successors or assigns;

  (5)  "Service mark", a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the services of one person and distinguish them from the services of others;

  (6)  "Trademark", any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a person to identify goods made or sold by him and to distinguish them from goods made or sold by others;

  (7)  "Trade name", a word, name, symbol, device or any combination thereof used by a person to identify his business, vocation or occupation and distinguish it from the business, vocation or occupation of others;

  (8)  For the purposes of sections 417.005 to 417.066, a trademark shall be deemed to be "used" in this state (a) on goods when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or on displays or documents associated with the goods or their sale or on the tags or labels affixed thereto and such goods are sold or otherwise distributed in the state, and (b) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in this state; and

  (9)  For the purposes of sections 417.005 to 417.066, a mark shall be deemed to be "abandoned" when its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use.  "Intent not to resume" may be inferred from circumstances.

­­--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 281 § 1, A.L. 1995 S.B. 80 & 88)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwards, 869 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993).
Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwards, 869 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “In particular, § 417.005(8) 16 states that “a trademark shall be deemed to be ‘used’ in this state (a) on goods when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto and such goods are sold…”
Bass Buster, Inc. v. Gapen Mfg. Co., 420 F. Supp. 144 (W.D. Mo. 1976). · cites it 2× “See Section 417.005, et seq., R.S.Mo., VAMS. However, the new statute is inapplicable to actions brought prior to September 28, 1973.”
Gilbert/Robinson, Inc. v. Carrie Beverage-Missouri, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 512 (E.D. Mo. 1991). “Together with its federal claims brought under the Lanham Act, plaintiff also asserted actions for service mark infringement and dilution under § 417.005 and § 417.061, R.S.Mo., and for unfair competition under the common law of the State of Missouri.”
Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Hallmark Dodge, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 990 (W.D. Mo. 1986). “Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence…”
Cushman v. Mutton Hollow Land Dev., Inc., 782 S.W.2d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “” § 417.005(7). Cf. Katz Drug Co. v. Katz, supra.”
Midwest Rsch. Inst. v. S & B Promotions, Inc., 677 F. Supp. 1007 (W.D. Mo. 1988). “Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence…”
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Balducci Publications, 814 F. Supp. 791 (E.D. Mo. 1993). “[7] Missouri's anti-dilution law provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the…”
Viacom, Inc. v. Ingram Enter., Inc., 965 F. Supp. 1278 (W.D. Mo. 1997). “Likelihood of injury to business reputation or dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law, shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding the absence of…”
Andy's Frozen Custard, Inc. v. Johnston (W.D. Mo. 2021). “061 provides: Likelihood of injury to business reputation or of dilution of the distinctive quality of a mark registered under sections 417.005 to 417.066, or a mark valid at common law, or a trade name valid at common law…shall be a ground for injunctive relief notwithstanding…”
Hoffmann Bros. Heating & Air v. Hoffmann Air & Heating (8th Cir. 2025). “§ 1127 ; see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.005 (6). It allows customers to recognize the products and services “they wish to purchase, as well as those they want to avoid.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.005(7): 1 case
Cushman v. Mutton Hollow Land Dev., Inc., 782 S.W.2d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990). “” § 417.005(7). Cf. Katz Drug Co. v. Katz, supra.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.005(8): 1 case
Superior Gearbox Co. v. Edwards, 869 S.W.2d 239 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). “In particular, § 417.005(8) 16 states that “a trademark shall be deemed to be ‘used’ in this state (a) on goods when it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto and such goods are sold…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.