Wash. Rev. Code » Title 19 · Chapter 19.80
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.80.010 (2026)

Registration required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Each person or persons who carries on, conducts, or transacts business in this state under any trade name must register that trade name with the department as provided in this section.
(1) Sole proprietorship or general partnership: The registration must set forth the true and real name or names of each person conducting the same, together with the post office address or addresses of each such person and the name of the general partnership, if applicable.
(2) Foreign or domestic limited partnership: The registration must set forth the limited partnership name as filed with the office of the secretary of state.
(3) Foreign or domestic limited liability company: The registration must set forth the limited liability company name as filed with the office of the secretary of state.
(4) Foreign or domestic corporation: The registration must set forth the corporate name as filed with the office of the secretary of state.
(5) Other business entities: The registration must set forth the entity's name as required by the department.
[ 2013 c 144 s 32; 2011 c 298 s 14; 2000 c 174 s 2; 1996 c 231 s 3; 1984 c 130 s 3; 1979 ex.s. c 22 s 1; 1907 c 145 s 1; RRS s 9976.]

Notes:

Purpose—Intent—Agency transfer—Contracting—Effective date—2011 c 298: See notes following RCW 19.02.020.
Effective date—1984 c 130: See note following RCW 19.80.001.
Adoption of rules—1979 ex.s. c 22: "The director of the department of licensing shall promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to implement the transfer of duties and of records required by section 1 of this 1979 act. Such rules shall provide for transfer of existing certificates from the counties to the department, set fees for filing of certificates and amendments, and set fees for obtaining copies thereof." [ 1979 ex.s. c 22 s 3.]
Effective date—1979 ex.s. c 22: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 1, 1979." [ 1979 ex.s. c 22 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: Griffiths & Sprague Stevedoring Co. v. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc., 430 P.2d 600 (Wash. 1967).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Griffiths & Sprague Stevedoring Co. v. Bayly, Martin & Fay, Inc., 430 P.2d 600 (Wash. 1967). · cites it 4× “040 reads: No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having an interest therein, shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such person or persons have filed a…”
Caruso v. Local Union No. 690 of Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 653 P.2d 638 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “RCW 19.80.010. RCW 19.80.040 provides: No person or persons carrying on, conducting or transacting business as aforesaid, or having an interest therein, shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such…”
Laliberte v. Wilkins, 638 P.2d 596 (Wash. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “At the close of Laliberte's case, the Wilkinses moved for dismissal, alleging for the first time Laliberte had not pleaded and proved he had filed a certificate of assumed name pursuant to RCW 19.80.010. Laliberte filed the certificate with the Department of Licensing after…”
Dearborn Lumber Co. v. Upton Enter., Inc., 662 P.2d 76 (Wash. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Capacity To Sue Upton now contends that Dearborn was barred from bringing suit by RCW 19.”
McCombs Constr., Inc. v. Barnes, 645 P.2d 1131 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). “2 McCombs' argument that Scott Barnes did not file a certificate of assumed name pursuant to RCW 19.80.010 is irrelevant to the resolution of this case.”
Reese Sales Co. v. Gier, 557 P.2d 1326 (Wash. Ct. App. 1977). “shall hereafter be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state without alleging and proving that such person or persons have filed a certificate [doing business under an assumed name] as provided for in RCW 19.80.010 . . .” (Italics ours.) 3 Under the…”
Blue Mountain Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 585 P.2d 832 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “See RCW 19.80.010. This right is nowhere specifically made exclusive, but since the lessees did pay a valuable consideration for something labeled "good will," they arguably would have a cause of action, sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, should the lessors attempt to…”
Renfroe v. Taggares, 586 P.2d 1213 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Defendants' first assignment of error relates to the failure of proof on the part of plaintiff of compliance with RCW 19.80.010, 1 which is the filing of a certificate of assumed name with the county clerk of the county in which the business is conducted.”
Annette Holding, LLC v. Nw. Clean Air Agency (Wash. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “RCW 19.80.010. RCW 19.80.005(3) defines a “person” under RCW 19.”
Pac. Landscape Mgmt. Inc v. Pac. Landscape Mgmt. LLC (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 2× “PLM- 22 OR relies on the text of RCW Section 19.80.010, which requires people doing business in 23 Washington under a trade name to register that trade name so that the state maintains a “central 24 registry.”
Robin Hood Vill. MHC, LLC, V. Austin Jansen (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “Jansen’s claim fails. III. TRADE NAME Third, Jansen argues that Robin Hood had not registered the business trade name “Robin Hood Village Mobile Home Park” and could therefore not maintain the lawsuit against him.”
John Kendall, Jr., V Arthur W. Allen (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “040 provides in part: “No person or persons carrying on, conducting, or transacting business under any trade name shall be entitled to maintain any suit in any of the courts of this state until such person or persons have properly completed the registration as provided for in…”
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.