Pang Sze Ray Melvin

Pang Sze Ray Melvin is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2017 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 5 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 1 law firm. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and trademark law. Their track record shows a 60.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 1 complex case, representing 20% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated expertise across 20 primary practice areas, with significant experience in trademarks and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Trademarks	3 cases	10% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	3 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	3 cases	10% of total caseload	General Practice21% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 10% of their total caseload.
Trademark Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	6% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Patents	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Distinctiveness	2 cases	6% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 6% of their total caseload.
Trade names	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Infringement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Registration criteria	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inventions	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Conflicts with earlier marks	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Corporate Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Disputes	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Pang Sze Ray Melvin has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Pang Sze Ray Melvin has been affiliated with 1 law firm. The most active affiliation involves 5 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Amica Law LLC	5 cases	100% of cases	TMRG Pte Ltd v Caerus Holding Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute over 'Luke's' Restaurant Name(Feb 2022) Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: Patent Infringement & Validity Dispute(Jul 2020) Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: CVD Diamond Patents, Validity, and Infringement(Feb 2020)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Pang Sze Ray Melvin's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.7
Complex Cases: 1 (20%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	20%
Won	33.0 parties avg	3.0	60%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2017	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2020	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Pang Sze Ray Melvin's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(20%)	20%
Partial	1(20%)	20%
Won	3(60%)	60%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	3,000.00	750.004 cases	4

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2017	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2020	2 11	Partial: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 5 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	TMRG Pte Ltd v Caerus Holding Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Infringement and Passing Off Dispute over 'Luke's' Restaurant Name 17 Feb 2022 Lukes Seafood LLC (Respondent, Defendant)Won	17 Feb 2022	Lukes Seafood LLC (Respondent, Defendant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed in favour of the respondent (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: Patent Infringement & Validity Dispute 21 Jul 2020 Element Six Technologies Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	21 Jul 2020	Element Six Technologies Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffPlaintiff was awarded costs of the action on a standard basis. Costs for the costs hearing were ordered in favor of the Plaintiff and fixed at $3,000, including disbursements (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd: CVD Diamond Patents, Validity, and Infringement 06 Feb 2020 Element Six Technologies Ltd (Plaintiff)Partial	06 Feb 2020	Element Six Technologies Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for Plaintiff in partSG 872 found valid and infringed.
4	Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Big Box Corporation Pte Ltd: Trade Mark Invalidity & Distinctiveness 04 Apr 2018 COURTS (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD (Appellant)Lost	04 Apr 2018	COURTS (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD (Appellant): Appeal dismissedAppeal against the decision of the learned IP Adjudicator in Courts (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Big Box Corporation Pte Ltd [2017] SGIPOS 5 dated 2 May 2017 refusing the appellant’s application for a declaration of invalidity of the registration of Trade Mark No T0501003C for the plain word mark, BIG BOX, owned by the respondent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Ceramiche Caesar SpA v Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd: Trade Mark Dispute over CAESARSTONE Mark 25 Apr 2017 CERAMICHE CAESAR SPA (Appellant)Won	25 Apr 2017	CERAMICHE CAESAR SPA (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the Respondent’s CAESARSTONE Mark shall not proceed to registration. The Respondent shall pay the Appellant its disbursements and half its costs here and below. For the avoidance of doubt, the latter includes the costs of: (a) this appeal; (b) the hearing before the Judge and; (c) the hearing before the PAR. The costs and disbursements are to be taxed if not agreed. We also make the usual consequential order for the payment out of the security. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.