Ruby Tham

Ruby Tham is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2010 to 2022. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 2 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and intellectual property law. Their track record shows a 75.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Ruby Tham has demonstrated expertise across 14 primary practice areas, with significant experience in trademarks and intellectual property law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Trademarks	4 cases	18% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 18% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property Law	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Trademark Infringement	2 cases	9% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Litigation	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	2 cases	9% of total caseload	General Practice28% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 9% of their total caseload.
Intellectual Property	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trade Mark Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Arbitration	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	1 cases	5% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Trademark Law	1 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Ruby Tham has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Ruby Tham has been affiliated with 2 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 3 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Drew & Napier LLC	3 cases	75% of cases	Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff: Trademark Opposition & VAGISAN Mark(Apr 2022) Digi International Inc v Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd: Trade Mark Registration, Co-existence Agreement & Distinctiveness(Jul 2021) Dr. August Wolff v. Combe: Trade Mark Invalidity & Likelihood of Confusion(Feb 2021)
Drew & Napier LLP	1 cases	25% of cases	Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers: Trade Mark Dispute over 'HYSTERIC GLAMOUR' and 'GLAMOUR'(Jan 2010)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Ruby Tham's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.0
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	12.0 parties avg	2.0	25%
Won	32.0 parties avg	2.0	75%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2010	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2021	22.0 parties avg	2.0
2022	12.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	1(25%)	25%
Won	3(75%)	75%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	7,500.00	3,750.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2010	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2021	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2022	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Combe International Ltd v Dr August Wolff: Trademark Opposition & VAGISAN Mark 06 Apr 2022 Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Defendant, Respondent)Won	06 Apr 2022	Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Defendant, Respondent): Judgment for DefendantAppeal dismissed with costs to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
2	Digi International Inc v Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd: Trade Mark Registration, Co-existence Agreement & Distinctiveness 01 Jul 2021 Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd (Respondent)Won	01 Jul 2021	Teraoka Seiko Co., Ltd (Respondent): Cross-Appeal DismissedCross-appeal against the Intellectual Property Adjudicator’s decision was dismissed.
3	Dr. August Wolff v. Combe: Trade Mark Invalidity & Likelihood of Confusion 24 Feb 2021 Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Plaintiff, Appellant)Lost	24 Feb 2021	Dr. August Wolff GmbH & Co. KG Arzneimittel (Plaintiff, Appellant): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; ordered to pay costs of the appeal fixed at $7,500 (inclusive of disbursements) to the defendant. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
4	Ozone Community Corp v Advance Magazine Publishers: Trade Mark Dispute over 'HYSTERIC GLAMOUR' and 'GLAMOUR' 14 Jan 2010 Ozone Community Corp (Appellant)Won	14 Jan 2010	Ozone Community Corp (Appellant): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed and the decision of the PAR was reversed.