Paul Teo

Paul Teo is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2018. The lawyer has handled 12 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and trademark infringement. Their track record shows a 58.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 4 complex cases, representing 33% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Paul Teo has demonstrated expertise across 34 primary practice areas, with significant experience in trademarks and contract law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Trademarks	7 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	7 cases	12% of total caseload	General Practice18% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 7 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	4 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized88% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Copyrights	3 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized79% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice47% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patents	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice12% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Groundless threats of infringement proceedings	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Trademark Law	2 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Extension of Time	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Formation of contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Judgments and Orders	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Evidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Summary Judgement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Well Known Trade Marks	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Innocent Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Groundless threat	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Pre-action discovery	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Inventions	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Patent Infringement	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Purposive Construction	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Employment Law	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Torts	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Misrepresentation	1 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Breach of Confidence	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Inducement of Breach of Contract	1 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Paul Teo has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Paul Teo has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 9 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	9 cases	75% of cases	RecordTV v MediaCorp: Copyright Infringement, Groundless Threats, and Time-Shifting(Dec 2009) Perdigao v Barilla: Extension of Time for Appeal Service in Trademark Opposition(Sep 2009) ASM Assembly Automation Ltd v Aurigin Technology: Patent Infringement & Validity in Solder Ball Placement Technology(Sep 2009)
Drew & Napier	2 cases	17% of cases	Bean Innovations v Flexon: Patent Infringement, Groundless Threat, Mailbox Assembly(May 2001) Sime Darby v Ngo Chew Hong: Trade Mark Dispute over 'Royal Spoon' and 'Spoons Brand'(Jul 2000)
Ravindran Associates	1 cases	8% of cases	Nanofilm v Semivac: Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract & Confidence(Jul 2018)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Paul Teo's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.4
Complex Cases: 4 (33%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	32.7 parties avg	2.7	25%
Partial	22.7 parties avg	2.7	17%
Won	73.8 parties avg	3.8	58%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2001	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2002	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2003	23.5 parties avg	3.5
2006	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2008	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2009	44.0 parties avg	4.0
2018	14.0 parties avg	4.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	3(25%)	25%
Partial	2(17%)	17%
Won	7(58%)	58%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	147,000.00	13,363.6411 cases	11

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2001	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2002	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2003	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2006	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2008	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2009	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 12 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Nanofilm v Semivac: Copyright Infringement, Breach of Contract & Confidence 25 Jul 2018 NANOFILM TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD (Plaintiff)Won	25 Jul 2018	NANOFILM TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; damages awarded in the amount of $147,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
2	RecordTV v MediaCorp: Copyright Infringement, Groundless Threats, and Time-Shifting 20 Dec 2009 MediaCorp Studios Pte Ltd (Defendant)Won	20 Dec 2009	MediaCorp Studios Pte Ltd (Defendant): Counterclaim AllowedInterlocutory judgment granted to the defendants with damages to be assessed by the registrar. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
3	Perdigao v Barilla: Extension of Time for Appeal Service in Trademark Opposition 17 Sep 2009 Barilla GER Fratelli-Societa Per Azioni (Defendant, Respondent)Partial	17 Sep 2009	Barilla GER Fratelli-Societa Per Azioni (Defendant, Respondent): Costs AwardedCosts awarded to the defendant at the appeal and below on an indemnity basis to be borne by the plaintiff’s solicitors (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
4	ASM Assembly Automation Ltd v Aurigin Technology: Patent Infringement & Validity in Solder Ball Placement Technology 15 Sep 2009 ASM Assembly Automation Ltd (Plaintiff)Lost	15 Sep 2009	ASM Assembly Automation Ltd (Plaintiff): Patent RevokedASM's patent was revoked for lacking novelty and inventiveness. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
5	Mitac v SingTel: Trade Mark Infringement Dispute over 'Mio' Marks 04 Jun 2009 Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Defendant, Respondent)Won	04 Jun 2009	Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (Defendant, Respondent): Claims dismissedPlaintiff's claims for trade mark infringement and invalidation of defendant's trade marks were dismissed with costs to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Love & Co v The Carat Club: Trade Mark Invalidity & Revocation for 'LOVE' 21 Sep 2008 Love & Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	21 Sep 2008	Love & Co Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Application grantedPlaintiff's application granted; registration of the defendant's simple “LOVE” mark declared invalid and revoked (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
7	Richemont International SA v Da Vinci Collections: Trade Mark Infringement & Validity 21 Aug 2006 Richemont International SA (Plaintiff)Won	21 Aug 2006	Richemont International SA (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffJudgment for the Plaintiff; an injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using the word mark 'DA VINCI' in relation to watches. An inquiry as to damages or, at the option of the plaintiff, an account of profits was ordered. The defendant must deliver up all infringing goods. Costs to the plaintiff to be taxed unless agreed. Currency assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Reemtsma v Hugo Boss: Revocation of Trade Mark for Non-Use under Trade Marks Act 09 Sep 2003 Hugo Boss AG (Respondent)Lost	09 Sep 2003	Hugo Boss AG (Respondent): Applications dismissedRespondent's trade marks revoked with costs to be paid to the applicant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
9	Bluestar Exchange v Teoh Keng Long: Trade Mark Revocation & Use of Variants 05 Aug 2003 Wong Sin Chong (Respondent)Won	05 Aug 2003	Wong Sin Chong (Respondent): Application DismissedThe application to revoke the Registered Trade Mark was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.
10	Fila Sport v Wadhwani: Pre-Action Discovery & Trademark Infringement 24 Feb 2002 Rising Sports Pte Ltd (Defendant)Partial	24 Feb 2002	Rising Sports Pte Ltd (Defendant): Appeal Allowed in PartDefendants' appeal allowed in part; limited discovery and interrogatories granted. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
11	Bean Innovations v Flexon: Patent Infringement, Groundless Threat, Mailbox Assembly 25 May 2001 Flexon (Pte) Ltd (Respondent)Won	25 May 2001	Flexon (Pte) Ltd (Respondent): Claim AllowedFlexon's claim that the threats were unjustifiable was allowed, and the appellant's counterclaim was dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
12	Sime Darby v Ngo Chew Hong: Trade Mark Dispute over 'Royal Spoon' and 'Spoons Brand' 20 Jul 2000 Sime Darby Edible Products Ltd (Applicant)Lost	20 Jul 2000	Sime Darby Edible Products Ltd (Applicant): Application DismissedApplication to invalidate Trade Mark Registration No T98/12388G was dismissed with costs. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.