Patrick Yap

Patrick Yap is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2000 to 2006. The lawyer has handled 4 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 3 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in trademarks and costs. Their track record shows a 50.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Patrick Yap has demonstrated expertise across 11 primary practice areas, with significant experience in trademarks and commercial law.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Trademarks	4 cases	29% of total caseload	Highly Specialized83% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 29% of their total caseload.
Commercial Law	1 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Injunctions	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Costs	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Res Judicata	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Estoppel	1 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Passing Off	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Damages	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	7% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Civil Practice	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.
Registered Design	1 cases	7% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Patrick Yap has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 7% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Patrick Yap has been affiliated with 3 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 2 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
K L Tan and Associates	2 cases	50% of cases	Nike International Ltd v Campomar SL: Trade Mark Revocation for Non-Use(Jan 2006) Nike v Campomar: Res Judicata & Trade Mark Revocation for Non-Use of NIKE in Perfumery(Aug 2005)
K L Tan & Associates	1 cases	25% of cases	Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm: Passing Off & Trade Mark Infringement over 'Carefree' vs 'Careree' Marks(Dec 2006)
KL Tan & Assocs	1 cases	25% of cases	Hunter Manufacturing v Soundtex: Design Infringement, Remedies, and Costs(Jan 2000)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Patrick Yap's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.5
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	22.0 parties avg	2.0	50%
Won	23.0 parties avg	3.0	50%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2000	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2005	13.0 parties avg	3.0
2006	22.0 parties avg	2.0

Case Outcome Analytics

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

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	2(50%)	50%
Won	2(50%)	50%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	0.00	0.002 cases	2

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2000	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2005	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2006	2 2	Lost: 2 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 4 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Johnson & Johnson v Uni-Charm: Passing Off & Trade Mark Infringement over 'Carefree' vs 'Careree' Marks 26 Dec 2006 Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Uni-Charm Corp) (Respondent)Lost	26 Dec 2006	Uni-Charm Kabushiki Kaisha (Uni-Charm Corp) (Respondent): Application to register trademark refusedApplication to register the “Careree” mark was not allowed.
2	Nike International Ltd v Campomar SL: Trade Mark Revocation for Non-Use 15 Jan 2006 Campomar SL (Respondent)Lost	15 Jan 2006	Campomar SL (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal was dismissed, and the trade mark registration was revoked.
3	Nike v Campomar: Res Judicata & Trade Mark Revocation for Non-Use of NIKE in Perfumery 04 Aug 2005 Campomar Sociedad Limitada (Respondent, Defendant)Won	04 Aug 2005	Campomar Sociedad Limitada (Respondent, Defendant): Appeal allowedAppeal against the revocation of its trade mark was allowed.
4	Hunter Manufacturing v Soundtex: Design Infringement, Remedies, and Costs 11 Jan 2000 Hunter Manufacturing Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent)Won	11 Jan 2000	Hunter Manufacturing Pte Ltd (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal AllowedAppeal allowed; inquiry into damages ordered for infringement after 12 June 1997; Soundtex to pay costs of claim, counterclaim, and appeals (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).