Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 417
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 417.200 (2026)

Fictitious names to be registered

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

  417.200.  Fictitious names to be registered. — That every name under which any person shall do or transact any business in this state, other than the true name of such person, is hereby declared to be a fictitious name, and it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in or transact any business in this state under a fictitious name without first registering same with the secretary of state as herein required.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 15466)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 14342; 1919 § 13276

CROSS REFERENCE:

Corporate names, reservation of, exclusive use, 351.110, 351.115

(1957) Failure to register fictitious name is not a defense to action to enjoin use of confusing similar name in absence of claim of bad faith or other wrong. Better Business Bureau v. Chappell (A.), 307 S.W.2d 510.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Phillips v. Hoke Constr., Inc., 834 S.W.2d 785 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Phillips v. Hoke Constr., Inc., 834 S.W.2d 785 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “The court observed that “Section 417.200 RSMo 1959 V.A.M.S. (now § 417.”
Moxness v. Hart, 131 S.W.3d 441 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Though Barnes was doing business under a fictitious name, the name was registered with the Secretary of State, according to the trial court, as required by Section 417.200, so his use of a fictitious name could not prevent him from moving to intervene.”
P & K Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Tusten Townhomes Redevelopment Corp., 877 S.W.2d 121 (Mo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “The Secretary of State’s records establish that on January 14, 1987 Radal Construction Company was registered as a fictitious name pursuant to Section 417.200 RSMo 1969. The sole owner was listed as Raymond Burchard.”
Williams v. Nuckolls, 644 S.W.2d 670 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “380, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Law; (3) negligence in selling a motor vehicle in a dangerous and defective condition of which defendant knew or should have known; and (4) strict liability in tort for selling the motor vehicle in a dangerous and defective condition.”
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Groeper, 691 S.W.2d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Before addressing the evidence we note that a corporation may adopt or assume a ficticious name, different from its true name, and may make and enter into valid and binding contracts under such assumed or ficticious name, even though the same is not registered as required by §…”
Meisel v. Mueller, 261 S.W.2d 526 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 4× “, which name he alleged was registered under the fictitious names statutes, to-wit, Section 417.200 et seq. RSMo 1949, V.A.M.”
Matter of Natale, 527 S.W.2d 402 (Mo. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “The statutory procedure accomplishes the change of name quickly and provides a means of notification to third parties under Rule 95.”
State v. Euge, 400 S.W.2d 119 (Mo. 1966). · cites it 3× “Section 417.200 RSMo 1959, V.A. M.S., provides that it shall be unlawful to transact business under a fictitious name without first registering said name with the Secretary of State, and § 417.”
Better Bus. Bureau of Kansas City Advert. Club, Inc. v. Chappell, 307 S.W.2d 510 (Mo. Ct. App. 1957). · cites it 2× “,” corporation and commencing the use of the fictitious name “Better Business Association of Greater Kansas City” in connection therewith. Cf. American Brewing Co.”
Shrout v. Tines, 260 S.W.2d 782 (Mo. Ct. App. 1953). · cites it 2× “Defendant's answer alleged that plaintiff and his predecessors had violated Section 417.200 to 417.230 RSMo 1949, V.A.”
Hanten v. Jacobs, 684 S.W.2d 433 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “PLAINTIFFS’ APPEAL ON DISMISSAL OF COUNT III Plaintiffs’ cross-appeal alleges that Count III should have been dismissed because it stated an actionable civil cause of action for breach of an affirmative statutory duty enforcible by a criminal penalty.”
Tharp v. Keeter/Schaefer Investments, L.P., 943 S.W.2d 811 (Mo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “To us, it seems confusing to refer to Seventy Six by one of its fictitious names (see § 417.200, RSMo 1994) instead of its true name.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.