When Louis Vuitton Malletier caught a Singapore trader selling counterfeit phone cases, key cases, wallets and watch straps bearing its marks through two Instagram shopfronts, the legal question that eventually reached the Court of Appeal was not whether the trader had infringed. He plainly had, and never even turned up to defend himself at first instance. The real fight was over money: how much statutory damages a Singapore court can actually award once counterfeiting is proven, and how the statutory ceiling on that award is meant to be calculated.
In “Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng” (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) [2026] SGCA 22, the Court of Appeal set aside a High Court award of S$200,000 and substituted S$510,000, after resolving a dispute over whether the statutory damages caps in the Trade Marks Act 1998 multiply by the number of registered marks infringed, or apply per type of goods and per lawsuit instead. The answer matters well beyond luxury handbags. Any Singapore business that owns a registered trade mark, and any business that resells, upcycles or otherwise deals in branded goods, now has a clearer picture of what a counterfeiting claim is actually worth in this jurisdiction, and why.
What This Case Is About
Louis Vuitton Malletier (the “Appellant”) is the registered proprietor of 13 “Louis Vuitton” trade marks in Singapore. It discovered that Ng Hoe Seng, trading as EMCASE SG (the “Respondent”), was operating an Instagram-based online store advertising and selling goods bearing signs identical to the Appellant’s registered marks, without consent. The Respondent sold nine distinct types of goods carrying the counterfeit marks: phone cases, watch straps, passport covers, key cases, card wallets and holders, pouches and purses, phone bags, spectacle cases and cigarette cases.
The Appellant sued for trade mark infringement and passing off. Because the Respondent never contested the claim, the Appellant obtained judgment in default, and the only question left for the courts was the quantum of damages. The Appellant elected to pursue statutory damages, a remedy available specifically where infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark. What followed was a genuinely difficult exercise in statutory interpretation that had never been squarely decided at the apex court level in Singapore: precisely how the monetary caps on statutory damages are meant to be calculated when multiple registered marks and multiple types of goods are involved in the same case.
Legal Basis
The claim and the appeal both turned on section 31(5)(c) and section 31(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (2020 Rev Ed) (the “TMA”). Section 31(5)(c) entitles a trade mark owner, where infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark, to elect statutory damages instead of general damages or an account of profits. That entitlement is subject to two caps: a limit of S$100,000 “for each type of goods or service” in relation to which the counterfeit mark has been used under section 31(5)(c)(i), and an aggregate limit of S$1 million “in any action” under section 31(5)(c)(ii), unless the claimant proves its actual loss exceeds that sum.
Section 31(6) then sets out the factors a court must weigh in fixing the actual award within those caps: the flagrancy of the infringement, any loss suffered or likely to be suffered by the claimant, any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant, the need to deter similar infringement, and any other relevant matters.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Hri Kumar Nair JCA (with Steven Chong JCA and Ang Cheng Hock JCA), applied the three-step purposive approach to statutory interpretation required by section 9A(1) of the Interpretation Act 1965, and confirmed that both caps under section 31(5)(c) operate on what the court called the “Per Goods” and “Per Action” bases respectively, not on a “Per Mark” basis. In other words, the S$100,000 cap applies once per type of goods regardless of how many registered marks appear on that type of goods, and the S$1 million aggregate cap applies once per lawsuit, not once per mark infringed.
Who This Affects
This decision is directly relevant to two very different groups of Singapore businesses.
Trade Mark Owners
Any Singapore company that has invested in registering its brand as a trade mark with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (“IPOS”) now has an authoritative statement of exactly how much statutory damages it can realistically expect to recover if its mark is counterfeited. The judgment confirms that the value of a statutory damages claim depends heavily on the number of distinct types of goods or services involved, not on how many separate registered marks a brand happens to hold. A business that registers many marks across many product lines gains stronger protection overall, but not a multiplied damages ceiling in a single counterfeiting case.
Resellers and Dealers in Branded Goods
Equally important is the exposure this case creates for any Singapore business that resells, upcycles or otherwise deals in branded goods, including secondhand or “pre-loved” items. The Respondent in this case explicitly marketed some of his goods as made from “authentic vintage 2nd hand materials” with “authenticity guaranteed and verified through a 3rd party authenticator”, or as “upcycled” from genuine Louis Vuitton products. The Court of Appeal treated this framing as an aggravating factor rather than a defence, because testing showed the underlying materials in at least two trap purchases were not from genuine Louis Vuitton products at all. Singapore businesses in the resale, vintage, upcycling or “authenticated secondhand luxury” space, and businesses more generally that rely on their own unregistered branding and want to understand how far common law protection stretches, should treat this case as a clear warning that marketing claims of authenticity or provenance will be scrutinised, and that dressing up counterfeit goods in the language of sustainability or upcycling does not reduce legal exposure. If anything, it increases it.
How the Dispute Unfolded
The Appellant first made a trap purchase of the Respondent’s goods around August 2022, then issued a cease and desist letter in March 2023. The Respondent’s registered business, EMCASE, ceased registration in April 2023 and its Instagram page went inactive shortly after, but the Respondent simply resumed selling the same counterfeit goods under a second Instagram account. A further trap purchase followed in May 2023.
The Appellant commenced proceedings in the General Division of the High Court. Because the Respondent did not file a notice of intention to contest, the Appellant obtained judgment in default, together with an injunction restraining further infringement. Remarkably, the Respondent continued advertising the counterfeit goods even after the injunction was drawn to his attention, and then switched his Instagram account to private to evade further detection.
At the assessment of damages stage, the High Court judge found 121 instances of infringement across the nine types of goods and awarded S$200,000 in statutory damages, without explaining how that figure was derived. On appeal, the Appellant argued for what the Court of Appeal labelled the “Per Mark Interpretation”: that the S$100,000 cap under section 31(5)(c)(i) should apply per registered mark used on each type of goods, and the S$1 million aggregate cap under section 31(5)(c)(ii) should apply per registered mark infringed overall. Since 13 registered marks were involved, this interpretation would have permitted an aggregate limit as high as S$13 million, subject to the lower per-type-of-goods derived figure of S$2.9 million, which the Appellant argued should be the governing limit. On that basis, the Appellant sought S$1.45 million in the High Court and, in the alternative before the Court of Appeal, S$675,000 if the Per Mark Interpretation was rejected.
The Court of Appeal rejected the Per Mark Interpretation outright. It held that the plain words of section 31(5)(c), namely “for each type of goods or service” and “in any action”, supported the “Per Goods Interpretation” and “Per Action Interpretation” favoured by the Respondent and adopted by the High Court judge below. The court also examined the legislative history behind Singapore’s 2004 introduction of statutory damages under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, and the equivalent United States Lanham Act provision, and found that Parliament had deliberately declined to copy the American “per counterfeit mark per type of goods” formula. The court further declined to apply the more punitive Canadian statutory damages scale urged on it by the Appellant, holding that Singapore’s regime is compensatory and deterrent, but never intended to be punitive.
Documents and Evidence Relevant
The case turned heavily on documentary and digital evidence rather than oral testimony, since the Respondent did not participate below. The key categories of evidence were:
- The Appellant’s certificates of registration for its 13 registered “Louis Vuitton” trade marks in Singapore, establishing the registered rights said to have been infringed.
- Records of the trap purchases made in August 2022 and May 2023, including the goods themselves and correspondence with the Respondent’s Instagram accounts.
- Screenshots and records from the two Instagram pages used to advertise and sell the counterfeit goods, including follower counts (16,100 and 17,100 respectively) used by the court to assess the scale and reach of the infringement.
- Evidence of 121 documented instances of infringement across the nine types of Offending Goods, broken down by type for the purposes of the per-type-of-goods damages assessment.
- Comparative pricing evidence, contrasting the prices charged for the counterfeit goods against genuine equivalents without the marks, used by the court to estimate profit margins and the benefit accruing to the Respondent under section 31(6)(c).
- The cease and desist letter and the terms of the injunction, together with evidence that the Respondent continued infringing after being notified of both.
Businesses building a counterfeiting or infringement claim should note how heavily the court relied on this kind of documentary trail. Where an infringer does not cooperate, as happened here, the burden falls on the trade mark owner to assemble a clear paper and screenshot record of the scale, duration and profitability of the infringement well before proceedings begin. The same discipline applies to businesses relying on other unregistered intellectual property rights such as copyright, where there is likewise no certificate to point to and ownership or infringement must be proven on the underlying evidence.
Costs and Quantum
The table below sets out how the figures in this case compared, from the High Court award through to the final Court of Appeal outcome.
| Figure | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| High Court award (2025) | S$200,000 | Lump sum across all nine types of goods, no breakdown given |
| Appellant’s claim under the Per Mark Interpretation | S$1.45 million (primary), S$675,000 (alternative) | Argued cap of S$2.9 million derived from 13 registered marks across nine types of goods |
| Actual statutory cap applicable | S$900,000 | Nine types of goods x S$100,000 per type under the Per Goods Interpretation |
| Court of Appeal award | S$510,000 | Assessed type-of-goods by type-of-goods under section 31(6) factors |
| Costs awarded | S$40,000 (all-in) | Payable by the Respondent to the Appellant, reduced to reflect partial success on appeal |
The Court of Appeal’s S$510,000 breakdown, assessed against the higher end of a S$50,000-per-type-of-goods midpoint, was as follows: S$70,000 each for phone cases, key cases and pouches or purses (the categories with the highest volume of infringement and clearest overlap with the Appellant’s own product lines); S$60,000 each for watch straps and card wallets or holders; S$50,000 each for passport covers, phone bags and spectacle cases; and S$30,000 for cigarette cases, reflecting only a single documented instance of infringement and no clear evidence that the Appellant even sells that type of product. Although the Appellant succeeded in more than doubling the damages awarded, it lost on its central legal argument, the Per Mark Interpretation, which is why costs were fixed at a relatively modest S$40,000 rather than a larger sum reflecting full success.
What Happens After the Order
With judgment now finalised at S$510,000 plus S$40,000 in costs, the Appellant’s practical task shifts to enforcement. Where a judgment debtor such as the Respondent has limited traceable assets and a history of evasive conduct, enforcement can involve writs of seizure and sale, garnishee proceedings against bank accounts, or examination of the judgment debtor’s means through the Singapore courts. A defendant who continues to defy court orders, as the Respondent did here by breaching the earlier injunction, also risks committal proceedings for contempt of court.
For brand owners generally, the judgment provides a workable damages framework for future counterfeiting claims: multiply the number of genuinely distinct types of goods or services involved by up to S$100,000, subject to an overall S$1 million ceiling per lawsuit, and expect the actual award to be calibrated type-of-goods by type-of-goods against the flagrancy, loss, benefit and deterrence factors in section 31(6). Brand owners bringing multiple related claims, or considering whether to consolidate several infringers into a single action, should factor in that the aggregate cap applies per action rather than growing with the number of marks asserted.
For resellers, secondhand dealers and anyone marketing “upcycled” or “authenticated” branded goods, the practical implication is that claims of authenticity or transparent sourcing will not shield a business if the underlying goods, or even the underlying materials, are not genuine. Singapore SMEs operating in this space should independently verify the provenance of any branded stock before advertising it as authentic, keep records substantiating any authenticity claims made to customers, and seek legal advice immediately on receipt of any cease and desist letter from a brand owner, rather than simply changing platforms or accounts and continuing to trade, as the Respondent did here to his considerable cost.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between the Per Mark and Per Goods interpretation?
Under the Per Mark Interpretation argued by the Appellant, the statutory damages caps in section 31(5)(c) of the TMA would multiply according to the number of separate registered trade marks infringed. Under the Per Goods and Per Action Interpretation confirmed by the Court of Appeal, the S$100,000 cap applies once per distinct type of goods or service involved, and the S$1 million aggregate cap applies once per lawsuit, regardless of how many registered marks were used on those goods.
Can a business claim it did not know goods were counterfeit as a defence?
Innocent infringement can be relevant to the assessment of flagrancy under section 31(6)(a) of the TMA, and may reduce the award within the statutory range, but it does not eliminate liability for trade mark infringement, which does not require knowledge or intent. A business that claims goods are “authentic”, “upcycled” or independently verified, without having actually confirmed this, is likely to be treated as an aggravating rather than mitigating factor, as occurred in this case.
What should a Singapore SME do if accused of selling counterfeit goods?
Do not ignore a cease and desist letter or court proceedings, as the Respondent’s non-participation here left him with no ability to challenge the facts and ultimately increased, rather than reduced, the damages assessed against him for recalcitrant and evasive conduct. Engage a Singapore Advocate and Solicitor promptly, preserve all relevant records, and stop the disputed conduct while the matter is assessed.
Does registering more trade marks increase the damages a brand owner can claim if counterfeited?
Not directly, following this judgment. The statutory damages ceiling is driven by the number of distinct types of goods or services involved and by the actual assessment of flagrancy, loss, benefit and deterrence under section 31(6), not by the number of registered marks a brand happens to hold.
Is Singapore’s statutory damages regime meant to punish infringers?
No. The Court of Appeal was explicit that Singapore’s statutory damages regime under section 31(5)(c) of the TMA is compensatory and deterrent, reflecting the loss suffered by the claimant and the benefit gained by the defendant, and is not a punitive remedy in the way that some overseas regimes, including the United States Lanham Act, are designed to operate.
Where can I read the actual judgment?
The full grounds of decision are published by the Supreme Court of Singapore and available at elitigation.sg.
Need Help With This Matter?
If your company is facing this situation, Raffles Corporate Services can assist with the groundwork – ACRA filings, compliance documentation, and coordinating with experienced Singapore law firms. For matters requiring court proceedings, we work with a panel of experienced Singapore law firms who offer cost-effective and efficient legal service and advice.
Email: [email protected]
Call, SMS or WhatsApp: +65 8501 7133
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified Singapore Advocate and Solicitor.
The Editorial Team, Raffles Corporate Services