5 August 2025

Fake Goods, Real Consequences: Singapore High Court Awards S$200,000 in Statutory Damages Against Counterfeiter​

​

What can a brand owner do when faced with a flagrant and evasive counterfeiter? In Singapore, statutory damages offer a practical remedy where proving actual loss is not feasible.

​

In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) [2025] SGHC 122 (“Louis Vuitton”), the Singapore High Court offered guidance on the assessment of statutory damages in trade mark infringement proceedings. The Court’s decision (awarding S$200,000 in damages) provides clarity and reassurance for brand owners seeking to enforce their rights in Singapore, especially in cases involving evasive infringers or where evidence of actual loss is lacking.

​

Background

The claimant, Louis Vuitton Malletier (“LVM”), is a well-known luxury brand and owner of numerous registered trade marks in Singapore. 

​

The defendant, Ng Hoe Seng, operated an Instagram-based online store selling wallets, phone cases, pouches and other accessories. Many of the items featured signs identical to LVM’s registered marks, and at least 121 instances of infringement were identified by LVM. 

​

The Defendant was absent and unrepresented through the proceedings. LVM obtained default judgment against the defendant and sought statutory damages under the Trade Marks Act (“TMA”).

​

What is a “Counterfeit Trade Mark”

Statutory damages are only available where the infringement involves a “counterfeit trade mark.” 

​

The TMA defines a “counterfeit trade mark” as a sign that (i) is identical with or so nearly resembling the registered mark “as to be calculated to deceive” and (ii) is applied without consent in a manner that falsely represents the goods as genuine.

​

The Court clarified that the “calculated to deceive” threshold is met if the defendant’s sign is identical with or so nearly resembling the claimant’s registered mark that the inexorable inference is that it was used to mislead the public. There is no need to prove the defendant’s subjective intention to deceive.¹

​

In this case, the signs used by the defendant were essentially “exact copies” of LVM’s marks. The manner of the application of the marks to the counterfeit goods led to the conclusion that they were applied to falsely represent that they were LVM’s goods.²

How Much Can Be Awarded? ​

Statutory damages are subject to specific monetary limits, unless the claimant proves that actual loss exceeds those thresholds. The limits are as follows:

1. S$100,000 for each type of goods or service to which the counterfeit trade mark was used (e.g., phone cases, wallets, etc.), and

2. S$1 million in the aggregate, unless actual loss exceeding S$1 million can be proved.

In this case, LVM sought to calculate the applicable limit based on the number of counterfeit trade marks used by the defendant. For example, since five different counterfeit marks were applied to each phone case, the limit for that category of goods should be S$500,000. Applying this logic across the nine product categories identified, LVM argued that the statutory limit should be raised to a theoretical total of S$2.9 million.³

The Court rejected this interpretation. It held that the S$100,000 limit applied for each type of good, and not for each counterfeit trade mark applied to a certain type of good.⁴

On the facts, the counterfeit trade marks were applied to nine distinct categories of goods. Accordingly, the maximum amount of statutory damages that could be awarded to LVM was capped at S$900,000.⁵

Consideration of factors

In determining the appropriate quantum of statutory damages, the Court is to consider:

1. The flagrancy of the infringement;

2. Any loss that the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer;

3. Any benefit to the defendant;

4. The need to deter other similar instances of infringement; and

5. All other relevant matters.

Having weighed these factors, the Court awarded S$200,000 in statutory damages to LVM.

Defendant’s Infringement was Flagrant

The Defendant’s conduct was highly flagrant.⁶ Among the Court’s considerations were:

1. Counterfeit marks were applied to nine different types of goods in a manner similar to that of LVM’s goods. 

2. The Defendant misrepresented the counterfeit goods as being “authentic” and from LVM.

3. The Defendant’s online infringement enabled him to reach a wider audience.

These factors collectively supported a finding of flagrant infringement.

Need for Deterrence

The Court highlighted the importance of deterrence in awarding statutory damages. Given the rise of online counterfeiting and the Defendant’s deliberate and persistent infringement (including rebranding and continuation of sales even after receiving a cease-and-desist letter), there was a clear need to send a strong deterrent message. The award was intended to deter the Defendant as well as other would-be counterfeiters from engaging in similar conduct.

Challenges in Assessing Loss and Gain

The Court acknowledged the inherent difficulty in assessing both the loss suffered and the benefit gained in cases involving counterfeit luxury goods or an uncooperative defendant.

While trade mark infringement often leads to lost sales, this assumption does not readily apply in the luxury goods context. Purchasers of counterfeit luxury items are typically motivated by the significantly lower price and may know that the goods are not genuine. In such circumstances, it is difficult to establish that the brand owner lost sales that would otherwise have been made.⁷

LVM was able to demonstrate that the Defendant leveraged LVM’s registered marks to command significantly higher prices than comparable unbranded products. However, the actual scale and profitability of the operation could not be ascertained, as the Defendant failed to participate in the proceedings or provide any sales records. Nonetheless, the Court accepted that the Defendant had benefited by free-riding on the goodwill and prestige associated with LVM’s brand.⁸

The Court also accepted that LVM suffered harm to the exclusivity, reputation, and goodwill of its marks. At the same time, it recognized the need to keep the extent of this type of harm in perspective and observed that the defendant was a sole proprietor selling goods through social media. The Court doubted that such a business would wreak havoc on LVM’s reputation and goodwill.⁹

Evasive and Uncooperative Defendant

The Court also considered the Defendant’s complete lack of cooperation throughout the proceedings. He breached an injunction restraining further infringing acts, took steps to conceal his infringement and did not participate in the legal proceedings. The Defendant’s failure to participate deprived LVM of the opportunity to discover the full extent of the infringement.¹⁰

Observations

The Louis Vuitton decision sends a clear message: brand owners are not without recourse when faced with evasive and uncooperative counterfeiters. Enforcement efforts need not stall simply because an infringer disappears or fails to disclose records. Even where actual loss is difficult to quantify, the statutory damages regime provides a robust avenue for redress.

If your business is facing trade mark infringement or counterfeit activity, our team can help you navigate the enforcement options available.​​​

​

If you have questions about trade mark use in online advertising, our team would be happy to assist.​​​​​​