Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.066 (2026)

Common law marks not affected

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

417.066. Common law marks not affected — actions to require cancellation of a mark or to compel registration, venue, parties. — 1. Nothing herein shall adversely affect the rights or the enforcement of rights in marks acquired in good faith at any time at common law.

2. Actions to require cancellation of a mark registered pursuant to sections 417.005 to 417.066 shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. Actions seeking an extraordinary writ to compel registration of a mark pursuant to sections 417.005 to 417.066 shall be brought in the circuit court of Cole County. In an action seeking an extraordinary writ, the proceeding shall be based solely upon the record before the secretary of state. In an action for cancellation, the secretary of state shall not be made a party to the proceeding but shall be notified of the filing of the complaint by the clerk of the court and shall be given the right to intervene in the action.

3. In any action brought against a nonresident registrant, service may be effected upon the agent for service of the registrant in accordance with the procedures established for service upon nonresident corporations and business entities under section 351.594.

--------

(L. 1973 H.B. 281 § 14, A.L. 1995 S.B. 80 & 88, A.L. 2007 S.B. 613 Revision)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: Sensient Tech. v. Sensoryeffects Flavor, 636 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Mo. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sensient Tech. v. Sensoryeffects Flavor, 636 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Mo. 2009). · cites it 4× “In Count 1, Plaintiffs seek to recover for Federal Trademark Infringement, Count 2 is a claim for Federal Unfair Competition, Count 3 is a claim for Federal False Advertising, Count 4 is a claim for Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Count 5 is a claim for…”

Bass Buster, Inc. v. Gapen Mfg. Co., 420 F. Supp. 144 (W.D. Mo. 1976). · cites it 2× “See: Section 417.066(2), R.S.Mo., VAMS. 2 . The issue of “deceptive misdescription” was not raised in Pretrial Order No.”

NRRM, LLC v. Am. Dream Auto Protect, Inc. (E.D. Mo. 2025). “061 and § 417.066. The following facts are accepted as true for the purposes of this order.”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.066(1) — 1 case

Sensient Tech. v. Sensoryeffects Flavor, 636 F. Supp. 2d 891 (E.D. Mo. 2009). “In Count 1, Plaintiffs seek to recover for Federal Trademark Infringement, Count 2 is a claim for Federal Unfair Competition, Count 3 is a claim for Federal False Advertising, Count 4 is a claim for Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Count 5 is a claim for…”

— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.066(2) — 1 case

Bass Buster, Inc. v. Gapen Mfg. Co., 420 F. Supp. 144 (W.D. Mo. 1976). “See: Section 417.066(2), R.S.Mo., VAMS. 2 . The issue of “deceptive misdescription” was not raised in Pretrial Order No.”

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.