The appellant, Cunningham, Tallman, Pennington, Inc., brought suit against “Case-Hoyte Color Printers” for breach of contract. “Case-Hoyt Atlanta Corporation” filed an answer and moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that “Case-Hoyte Color Printers” was neither a legal entity nor a trade name for “Case-Hoyt Atlanta Corporation.” Thereafter, appellant moved to amend its complaint by substituting “Case-Hoyt Atlanta Corporation” for “Case-Hoyte Color Printers” as the named defendant. This appeal is from an order denying the motion to amend and granting the motion to dismiss. Held:

“Where the real defendant has been properly served, a plaintiff has the right to amend in order to correct a misnomer in the description of the defendant contained in the complaint. [Cits.] Correction of a misnomer involves no substitution of parties and does not add a new and distinct party. [Cit.]” Atlanta Veterans Transp. v. Westmoreland, 123 Ga. App. 466 (181 SE2d 504) (1971). See also Franklyn Gesner Fine Paintings v. Ketcham, 252 Ga. 537 (314 SE2d 903) (1984); Block v. Voyager Life Ins. Co., 251 Ga. 162 (1) (303 SE2d 742) (1983); London Iron &c. Co. v. Logan, 133 Ga. App. 692 (2) (212 SE2d 21) (1975). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion to amend and in granting appellee’s motion to dismiss.

Judgment reversed.