We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo






  Request new password

Wong Partnership

Offices

  1. China

    1. Shanghai WongPartnership LLP

      Unit 5006 Raffles City Office Tower, 268 Xizang Road Central, Shanghai 200001, China T 86 21 6340 3131 F 86 21 6340 3315 W

  2. Singapore

    1. Singapore WongPartnership LLP

      12 Marina Boulevard Level 28, Marina Bay Financial Centre Tower 3, Singapore 018982, Singapore T 65 6416 8000 F 65 6532 5722 W

  3. United Arab Emirates

    1. Abu Dhabi WongPartnership LLP

      Al Bateen Towers Building C3 Office 11-01 (P1), PO Box 37883, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates T 971 2 651 0800 F 971 2 635 9706 W

  1. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v David Harris & Ors 2013 EWHC 159 (Ch) (England, High Court, 5 February 2013)

    United Kingdom - May 22 2013

    Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and other claimants (collectively referred to as the "Claimants") are members of the Motion Picture

  2. Pearson & Ors v Lehman Brothers Finance SA & Ors 2010 EWHC 2914 (CH) (England, High Court, 19 November 2010)

    United Kingdom - February 10 2011

    This case deals with the legal efficacy of a trust over shares held in a fluctuating account

  3. Chng Bee Kheng & Anor (executrixes and trustees of the estate of Fock Poh Kum, deceased) v Chng Eng Chye 2013 SGHC 48 (Singpaore, High Court, 26 February 2013)

    Singapore - May 7 2013

    This case involved a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a residential property off Stevens Road (the "Property"). The Property was registered

  4. Tamiz v Google Inc 2013 EWCA Civ 68 (England, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2013)

    United Kingdom - May 7 2013

    A posting on a blog received various comments from its readers. Several of these comments, made over a period of three days, were defamatory of the

  5. Campomar SL v Nike International Ltd

    Singapore - April 29 2011

    Trade mark registration denied because while the registration of an earlier identical mark had been revoked, the effective date of revocation was from the date of the application for revocation and there was still a residual period of validity of the revoked mark which would have overlapped with the period of validity of the applied for mark resulting in a period of time where two identical marks would have been on the trade mark register for the same class

See more articles

  1. Omnipharm Limited v Merial 2013 EWCA Civ 2 (England, Court of Appeal, 23 January 2013)

    United Kingdom - May 22 2013

    One of the claimant's patents for a formulation for protecting small animals against ticks provided a theory of dermal distribution and lists of

  2. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Ors v David Harris & Ors 2013 EWHC 159 (Ch) (England, High Court, 5 February 2013)

    United Kingdom - May 22 2013

    Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and other claimants (collectively referred to as the "Claimants") are members of the Motion Picture

  3. Chng Bee Kheng & Anor (executrixes and trustees of the estate of Fock Poh Kum, deceased) v Chng Eng Chye 2013 SGHC 48 (Singpaore, High Court, 26 February 2013)

    Singapore - May 7 2013

    This case involved a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a residential property off Stevens Road (the "Property"). The Property was registered

  4. Australian Timber Products Pte v A Pacific Construction & Development Pte Ltd 2013 SGHC 56 (Singapore, High Court, 1 March 2013)

    Singapore - May 7 2013

    When a progress claim is made that omits certain details required under regulations ("Regulations"), does this render the progress claim invalid?

  5. Tamiz v Google Inc 2013 EWCA Civ 68 (England, Court of Appeal, 14 February 2013)

    United Kingdom - May 7 2013

    A posting on a blog received various comments from its readers. Several of these comments, made over a period of three days, were defamatory of the

See more articles
© Copyright 2006-2013 Globe Business Publishing Ltd | Cookies | Disclaimer | Privacy policy