Promedia Directories Pte Ltd
Promedia Directories Pte Ltd is a corporation in Singapore's legal system. The party has been involved in 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Represented by 3 counsels. Through 1 law firm. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.
Legal Representation
Promedia Directories Pte Ltd has been represented by 1 law firm and 3 counsels.
| Law Firm | Cases Handled |
|---|---|
| Infinitus Law Corporation | 4 cases |
Case Complexity Analysis
Analysis of Promedia Directories Pte Ltd's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.
Complexity Overview
- Average Parties per Case
- 2.3
- Complex Cases
- 0 (0.0%)
- Cases with more than 3 parties
Complexity by Case Type
| Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 13.0 parties avg |
| Partial | 12.0 parties avg |
| Won | 22.0 parties avg |
Complexity Trends Over Time
| Year | Cases |
|---|---|
| 2017 | 12.0 parties avg |
| 2016 | 12.0 parties avg |
| 2013 | 13.0 parties avg |
| 2010 | 12.0 parties avg |
Case Outcome Analytics
Analysis of Promedia Directories Pte Ltd's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.
Outcome Distribution
| Outcome Type | Cases |
|---|---|
| Lost | 1(25.0%) |
| Partial | 1(25.0%) |
| Won | 2(50.0%) |
Monetary Outcomes
| Currency | Average |
|---|---|
| SGD | 0.003 cases |
Yearly Outcome Trends
| Year | Total Cases |
|---|---|
| 2017 | 1 1 |
| 2016 | 1 1 |
| 2013 | 1 1 |
| 2010 | 1 1 |
Case History
Displaying all 4 cases
| Case | Role | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
18 Apr 2017 | Respondent, Applicant | WonPromedia succeeded on its counterclaim for groundless threat of copyright infringement, with damages to be assessed. This was reversed on appeal. |
27 Jan 2016 | Defendant | WonDefendant's counterclaim for groundless threats of copyright infringement was allowed. (Assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore). |
21 May 2013 | Defendant, Appellant | LostThe Defendant's appeal against the order for keyword searches was dismissed, subject to minor variations. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore. |
29 Mar 2010 | Defendant | PartialDefendant'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). |