Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy

Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2011 to 2023. The lawyer has handled 8 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in intellectual property law and patents. Their track record shows a 25.0% success rate in resolved cases. They have managed 3 complex cases, representing 38% of their total caseload.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated expertise across 24 primary practice areas, with significant experience in intellectual property law and international trade.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Intellectual Property Law	5 cases	13% of total caseload	Highly Specialized77% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 5 cases which represents 13% of their total caseload.
International Trade	3 cases	8% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Patents	3 cases	8% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 8% of their total caseload.
Freight Forwarding	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Geographical indications	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Appellate Practice	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice15% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trademarks	2 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice26% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Border Enforcement Measures	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Inventorship	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patent Entitlement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Border Enforcement	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Patent Amendments	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Litigation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Jurisdiction	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Qualification of rights	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Shipping Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Wine Law	1 cases	3% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
International Agreements	1 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 4 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Ravindran Associates LLP	4 cases	50% of cases	Consorzio di Tutela v Australian Grape: Geographical Indications & Consumer Mislead(Nov 2023) Australian Grape and Wine v Consorzio Prosecco: Geographical Indication Dispute over 'Prosecco' Wine(Feb 2022) Sunseap v Sun Electric: High Court's Jurisdiction in Patent Revocation Proceedings(Jan 2019)
Ravindran Associates	4 cases	50% of cases	Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital: Patent Ownership Dispute(Aug 2018) Louis Vuitton v. Megastar Shipping: Trade Mark Infringement & Border Enforcement(Nov 2017) Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd: Patent Revocation & High Court Jurisdiction(Sep 2017)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 3.9
Complex Cases: 3 (38%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	54.4 parties avg	4.4	63%
Partial	12.0 parties avg	2.0	13%
Won	23.0 parties avg	3.0	25%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2011	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2017	26.3 parties avg	6.3
2018	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2019	23.3 parties avg	3.3
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2023	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	5(63%)	63%
Partial	1(13%)	13%
Won	2(25%)	25%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	231,000.00	33,000.007 cases	7

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2011	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2017	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2018	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)
2019	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)
2022	1 1	Partial: 1 cases (100.0%)
2023	1 1	Lost: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 8 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Consorzio di Tutela v Australian Grape: Geographical Indications & Consumer Mislead 07 Nov 2023 Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (Respondent)Lost	07 Nov 2023	Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed, and ordered to pay costs of $120,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to the Consorzio. Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Australian Grape and Wine v Consorzio Prosecco: Geographical Indication Dispute over 'Prosecco' Wine 22 Feb 2022 Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (Appellant)Partial	22 Feb 2022	Australian Grape and Wine Incorporated (Appellant): Appeal allowed in partAppeal allowed on the basis of section 41(1)(f) of the Geographical Indications Act. The portion of the costs of the appeal and the hearing before the PAR specific to s 41(1)(f) of the GIA were awarded to AGWI and fixed at $21,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
3	Sunseap v Sun Electric: High Court's Jurisdiction in Patent Revocation Proceedings 09 Jan 2019 Sun Electric Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff)Lost	09 Jan 2019	Sun Electric Pte Ltd (Respondent, Plaintiff): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; required to pay costs and disbursements to the Appellants. The currency is assumed to be SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Burberry Ltd & Louis Vuitton Malletier v Megastar Shipping: Trade Mark Infringement & Border Enforcement 06 Jan 2019 Louis Vuitton Malletier (Appellant)Lost	06 Jan 2019	Louis Vuitton Malletier (Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed with costs of SGD 45,000 to be paid to the respondent (includes disbursements). Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
5	Cicada Cube Pte Ltd v National University Hospital: Patent Ownership Dispute 27 Aug 2018 Cicada Cube Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent)Lost	27 Aug 2018	Cicada Cube Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; Cicada Cube remains a joint proprietor of the patent. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
6	Louis Vuitton v. Megastar Shipping: Trade Mark Infringement & Border Enforcement 23 Nov 2017 Burberry Limited (Plaintiff)Lost	23 Nov 2017	Burberry Limited (Plaintiff): Claim DismissedClaim for trade mark infringement dismissed; costs awarded to the Defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
7	Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Sunseap Group Pte Ltd: Patent Revocation & High Court Jurisdiction 27 Sep 2017 Sun Electric Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant)Won	27 Sep 2017	Sun Electric Pte Ltd (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; the High Court does not have original jurisdiction under the Patents Act to revoke a patent by way of a counterclaim in infringement proceedings. The court assumes the currency is SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore.
8	Dien Ghin v Khek Tai Ting: Patent Revocation for Lack of Novelty & Inventive Step 20 Feb 2011 Dien Ghin Electronic (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff)Won	20 Feb 2011	Dien Ghin Electronic (S) Pte Ltd (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffSingapore Patent No 89534 be revoked, and that the defendant’s counterclaim against the plaintiff for infringement of the same patent be dismissed. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.