G Radakrishnan

G Radakrishnan is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2001 to 2024. The lawyer has handled 21 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 5 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and passing off. Their track record shows a 52.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 5% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

G Radakrishnan has demonstrated expertise across 62 primary practice areas, with significant experience in contract law and trademarks.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Contract Law	15 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 15 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	10 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	10 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 10 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	7 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	5 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	4 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced71% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	4 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice33% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Trade names	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced57% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Damages	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patents	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized93% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	2 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	2 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced73% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
House-trespass	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Disclosure of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Performance of Contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Infringement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Groundless threat	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Repudiation of contract	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Declaration of Invalidity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Validity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Authorship	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Subject matter	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Compilations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Exhaustion of Rights	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Dynamic Currency Conversion	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Electronic Discovery	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Service mark	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Patent Amendments	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Election of Remedies	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Innocent Infringement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Account of Profits	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Implied Consent	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Antitrust and Trade Regulation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Commercial Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Corporate Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Unfair Competition	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fiduciary Duties	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Termination	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Measure of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Malicious Falsehood	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Discovery of documents	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sexual Offences	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Deeds of Settlement	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Assessment of Damages	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	G Radakrishnan has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

G Radakrishnan has been affiliated with 5 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 11 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Infinitus Law Corporation	11 cases	52% of cases	Global Yellow Pages v Promedia: Copyright Infringement in Telephone Directories(Apr 2017) Global Yellow Pages v Promedia: Copyright Infringement, Telephone Directories, Originality(Jan 2016) Global Yellow Pages v Promedia & Streetdirectory: Electronic Discovery & Copyright Infringement(May 2013)
Grays LLC	4 cases	19% of cases	Nalli Pte Ltd v Nalli Kuppuswami Chetti: Trademark, Passing Off & Contract Dispute(May 2024) All India Supermart v Indian Supermarket: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off(Dec 2021) Biofuel Industries v. V8 Environmental: Breach of Contract & Damages Dispute(Jun 2018)
Rada & Associates	2 cases	10% of cases	First Currency Choice v Main-Line: Dynamic Currency Conversion Patent Dispute(Oct 2007) Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Dynamic Currency Conversion(Dec 2006)
Rada and Associates	2 cases	10% of cases	Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd: Trademark Infringement & Passing Off Dispute(Sep 2005) Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd: Discovery of Documents and Use in Separate Proceedings(Feb 2004)
Khattar Wong & Partners	2 cases	10% of cases	Pan-West v Grand Bigwin: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off of KATANA Golf Clubs(Oct 2003) Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation: Trademark Dispute over Hi-Bond Mark(Oct 2001)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of G Radakrishnan's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.0
Complex Cases: 1 (5%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	64.4 parties avg	4.4	29%
Partial	42.3 parties avg	2.3	19%
Won	112.2 parties avg	2.2	52%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2001	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2005	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2006	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2007	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2008	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2009	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2010	32.0 parties avg	2.0
2012	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2016	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2024	17.0 parties avg	7.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of G Radakrishnan's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	6(29%)	29%
Partial	4(19%)	19%
Won	11(52%)	52%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,273,942.18	84,929.4815 cases	15

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2001	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2007	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	3 12	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2010	3 111	Lost: 1 cases (33.3%) Partial: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 1 cases (33.3%)
2012	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2016	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	2 2	Won: 2 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2024	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 21 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Nalli Pte Ltd v Nalli Kuppuswami Chetti: Trademark, Passing Off & Contract Dispute 26 May 2024 Nalli Chinnasami Chetty Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff)Lost	26 May 2024	Nalli Chinnasami Chetty Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff): Claims DismissedClaims dismissed; appeal allowed; costs of $200,000 at trial and $40,000 for the appeal awarded to the appellant. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	All India Supermart v Indian Supermarket: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off 30 Dec 2021 All India Supermart Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Applicant)Lost	30 Dec 2021	All India Supermart Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Applicant): Claims DismissedPlaintiff's claims for trade mark infringement and passing off were dismissed.
3	Biofuel Industries v. V8 Environmental: Breach of Contract & Damages Dispute 24 Jun 2018 BIOFUEL INDUSTRIES PTE LTD (Appellant, Plaintiff)Partial	24 Jun 2018	BIOFUEL INDUSTRIES PTE LTD (Appellant, Plaintiff): Nominal damages awardedNominal damages of $1,000 awarded for wrongful termination of the BSA (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	Biofuel Industries v V8 Environmental: Biomass Supply Agreement Termination Dispute 27 Jul 2017 BIOFUEL INDUSTRIES PTE LTD (Plaintiff)Won	27 Jul 2017	BIOFUEL INDUSTRIES PTE LTD (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $1,260,942.18 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Global Yellow Pages v Promedia: Copyright Infringement in Telephone Directories 18 Apr 2017 Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Respondent, Applicant)Won	18 Apr 2017	Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Respondent, Applicant): Counterclaim AllowedPromedia succeeded on its counterclaim for groundless threat of copyright infringement, with damages to be assessed. This was reversed on appeal.
6	Global Yellow Pages v Promedia: Copyright Infringement, Telephone Directories, Originality 27 Jan 2016 Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	27 Jan 2016	Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim AllowedDefendant's counterclaim for groundless threats of copyright infringement was allowed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Global Yellow Pages v Promedia & Streetdirectory: Electronic Discovery & Copyright Infringement 21 May 2013 Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	21 May 2013	Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal dismissed with variationsThe Defendant's appeal against the order for keyword searches was dismissed, subject to minor variations. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Mainfreight (S) Pte Ltd v Mainfreight International Logistics Pte Ltd: Passing Off of Trade Name and Service Mark 14 Aug 2012 Mainfreight (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	14 Aug 2012	Mainfreight (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; an inquiry as to the damages suffered by the plaintiff or an account of the profits made by the defendant from all the alleged acts of passing off and the defendant shall pay the plaintiff all sums found due upon the inquiry (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
9	Festina Lotus v Romanson: Trade Mark Opposition for J.ESTINA & Device 15 Jul 2010 Festina Lotus SA (Appellant)Won	15 Jul 2010	Festina Lotus SA (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed on the basis of opposition under sections 7(6) and 8(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act. The judgment does not specify a currency, so the currency of the jurisdiction (Singapore) is assumed.
10	Global Yellow Pages v Promedia: Copyright Infringement & Fair Dealing in Directory Publishing 29 Mar 2010 Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	29 Mar 2010	Promedia Directories Pte Ltd (Defendant): Oral application to amend paragraph 9(v) allowedDefendant's oral application to amend paragraph 9(v) to read in the following manner: “The Defendant’s alleged copying of the information, i.e., telephone subscriber information, from the Plaintiff’s directories was fair dealing by reason of the Defendant not being able to obtain the information from the service providers even for valuable consideration.” The court ordered the Defendant to pay costs of $5000 to the Plaintiff (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
11	Public Prosecutor v Robiul Bhoreshuddin Mondal: Rape, Housebreaking, and Outrage of Modesty 10 Jan 2010 Robiul Bhoreshuddin Mondal (Defense)Lost	10 Jan 2010	Robiul Bhoreshuddin Mondal (Defense): Guilty as chargedThe accused was found guilty on all seven charges.
12	City Chain v Louis Vuitton: Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off & Well-Known Trade Marks 05 Nov 2009 Louis Vuitton Malletier (Respondent)Lost	05 Nov 2009	Louis Vuitton Malletier (Respondent): Claims DismissedThe respondent's claims for trade mark infringement, passing off, and breach of Section 55 of the Trade Marks Act were dismissed.
13	Chai Chyau Ling v Racing Technology: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off 03 May 2009 Chai Chyau Ling (doing business as Racetech Auto) (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	03 May 2009	Chai Chyau Ling (doing business as Racetech Auto) (Plaintiff, Respondent): Judgment for PlaintiffAppeal dismissed with costs of $4,000 inclusive of disbursements, to be paid to the Respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
14	Louis Vuitton v City Chain: Trade Mark Infringement, Passing Off & Dilution 28 Jan 2009 Louis Vuitton Malletier (Plaintiff)Won	28 Jan 2009	Louis Vuitton Malletier (Plaintiff): Claims on the grounds of infringement of trade mark under s 27(1) and (2) of the Act, in passing off and under s 55 of the Act succeedsThe plaintiff succeeded in its claims on the grounds of infringement of trade mark under s 27(1) and (2) of the Act, in passing off and under s 55 of the Act. Injunctions as claimed are issued accordingly. There be an inquiry as to damages or an account of profits at the option of the plaintiff. There be delivery up of infringing articles within 14 days from the date of judgment or, alternatively, the defendant’s solicitors to confirm to the plaintiff’s solicitors by letter that there are no further infringing articles in the possession of the defendant. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff costs of the civil action. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
15	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Discovery 09 Apr 2008 Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	09 Apr 2008	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Plaintiff): Application granted in partApplication for discovery granted in part, with specific documents to be disclosed by the second defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
16	First Currency Choice v Main-Line: Dynamic Currency Conversion Patent Dispute 30 Oct 2007 Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Respondent)Won	30 Oct 2007	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Respondent): Judgment for RespondentJudgment for the Respondent; appeals dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd: Patent Infringement & Dynamic Currency Conversion 20 Dec 2006 Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	20 Dec 2006	Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffThe court found the patent valid and infringed by the defendants.
18	Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd: Trademark Infringement & Passing Off Dispute 29 Sep 2005 Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Won	29 Sep 2005	Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe defendant's appeal was dismissed. The currency is assumed to be SGD, the currency of Singapore.
19	Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd: Discovery of Documents and Use in Separate Proceedings 25 Feb 2004 Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd (Defendant, Appellant)Lost	25 Feb 2004	Central Mercantile Corp (S) Ltd (Defendant, Appellant): Appeal dismissedCMC's appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s refusal to grant them leave to use documents disclosed during the assessment of damages in Suit No 637 of 2000 for the purpose of initiating civil and criminal proceedings against persons who were not parties in the said suit was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
20	Pan-West v Grand Bigwin: Trade Mark Infringement & Passing Off of KATANA Golf Clubs 19 Oct 2003 Pan-West (Pte) Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent)Partial	19 Oct 2003	Pan-West (Pte) Ltd (Plaintiff, Respondent): Appeal allowed in partAppeal allowed in part regarding costs. The defendants to pay the plaintiffs the sum of SGD8,000.00 in respect of the hearing below. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
21	Mopi Pte Ltd v Central Mercantile Corporation: Trademark Dispute over Hi-Bond Mark 30 Oct 2001 Central Mercantile Corporation (S) Ltd (Defendant)Won	30 Oct 2001	Central Mercantile Corporation (S) Ltd (Defendant): Interlocutory Judgment on CounterclaimInterlocutory judgment awarded to the defendants on their counterclaim, with a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.