requirements of a summons set out in Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b) must be construed strictly and compliance with those requirements must be exact. Thompson v. Potlatch Corp., 326 Ark. 244, 930 S.W.2d 355 (1996) (citing Carruth v. Design Interiors, Inc., supra, which held that the motion to dismiss for failure of service of process should have been granted where the summons was not signed by the clerk as required by Rule 4(b)). Pursuant to Rule 4(i) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, it is also mandatory for the trial court to dismiss the action without prejudice if service is not made within 120 days of filing the complaint and no motion to extend is timely made. Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(i) (2003); Lyons v. Forrest City Machine Works, Inc., 301 Ark. 559, 785 S.W.2d 220 (1990) (Lyons I) (<HOLDING>); see also Raymond v. Raymond, supra.; Cole v.
holding that state trade secret law could not protect vending machine mechanism where machine was sold to third party holding that service of summons was insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant city where a copy of the summons and complaint was delivered to a person other than an official named in rule 4j5 holding that rule 4j predecessor rule to 4m s exemption for service in foreign countries does not apply where service under rule 4i predecessor to rule 4j  was never attempted holding that a cosmeticians use of a hair removal machine was a professional service despite the cosmeticians testimony that she lacked any specialized training to operate the machine holding service of process not proper under rule 4d5 and dismissal mandatory under rule 4i where summons addressed to fc machine works and return showed that fc machine works was served as the person named therein as defendant