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)

648.005

NOTES OF DECISIONS

Foreign corporation name that complies with requirements of ORS 60.717 qualifies as real and true business name whether or not name is filed with Secretary of State. Kelly v. Olinger Travel Homes, Inc., 200 Or App 635, 117 P3d 282 (2005), Sup Ct review denied

648.010

ATTY. GEN. OPINIONS: Authority of the Corporation Commissioner to inquire whether an applicant for an assumed name intends to carry on the same business at the same location, (1973) Vol 36, p 509

648.015

See annotations under ORS 648.051.

648.025

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)

648.051

LAW REVIEW CITATIONS

Under former similar statute (ORS 648.015)

62 OLR 161 (1983)

648.090

See annotations under ORS 648.135.

648.135

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