Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 2
- Title: L’Oreal and another v Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of decision: 2 April 2025
- Originating Application No: 305 of 2024
- Summons No: 165 of 2025
- Hearing dates: 14 February 2025; 17 March 2025
- Judgment reserved: 2 April 2025
- Judge: AR Chong Ee Hsiun
- Applicants/Plaintiffs: (1) L’Oreal; (2) La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique
- Respondent/Defendant: Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd
- Legal areas: Abuse of Process; Riddick principle; Civil Procedure—Disclosure of documents/information; Civil Procedure—Interrogatories
- Statutes referenced: (not specified in the provided extract)
- Rules of Court referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (in particular O 11 r 11(1)); Rules of Court 2014 (in particular O 26 and O 26A; and O 26A pre-action interrogatories)
- Earlier related order: HC/ORC 3108/2024 (information production order made by AR Claudia Chen on 27 May 2024)
- Key procedural step: HC/SUM 165/2025 (application alleging insufficiency/inadequacy of answers to the information production order)
- Judgment length: 45 pages; 13,201 words
- Cases cited (as provided): [2024] SGHC 308; [2024] SGHC 327; [2025] SGHCR 2
Summary
This decision concerns a pre-action application for production of information in aid of trademark enforcement, and the court’s supervisory role when a respondent’s answers to an information production order are alleged to be incomplete. The applicants, L’Oreal and La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique, sought information about specific sellers on the Shopee online marketplace who were alleged to have offered counterfeit cosmetic products bearing signs identical or similar to the applicants’ registered trademarks in Singapore. After the applicants obtained an information production order under O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021, they later brought a summons challenging the sufficiency of the respondent’s disclosure.
The High Court (AR Chong Ee Hsiun) addressed four connected questions: (1) whether there was full compliance with the information production order; (2) whether further information and/or explanations should be furnished; (3) whether a non-disclosure order should be granted to restrain the respondent and related persons from informing sellers about the proceedings; and (4) whether permission should be granted to notify the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) of alleged shortcomings in the respondent’s seller identity verification processes. The judgment is notable for its analysis of how “interrogatories” principles from the former procedural regime may inform the court’s approach to sufficiency of answers under the newer O 11 r 11 framework.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicants are incorporated in France and form part of a group that manufactures and supplies perfumes, cosmetics, and haircare products. They adduced evidence that they are registered proprietors of valid and subsisting trademarks in Singapore (the “Registered Marks”). Their enforcement strategy involved identifying sellers on an online platform who allegedly offered counterfeit goods infringing those trademarks.
The respondent, Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd, operates an online marketplace (the “Shopee Platform”) that enables sales between buyers and sellers. The respondent’s evidence emphasised that users are independent individuals or businesses not associated with Shopee in any way. This factual framing mattered because the applicants’ pre-action relief targeted the identity and contact details of sellers, while the respondent resisted by focusing on what it could obtain and control within its platform operations.
On 1 April 2024, the applicants filed HC/OA 305/2024 seeking pre-action production of information and documents relating to 18 identified users (“Sellers”) on the Shopee Platform. The applicants alleged that these sellers, without the applicants’ consent, advertised and offered for sale cosmetic products (“Offending Goods”) under signs identical and/or similar to one or more of the Registered Marks. The applicants further asserted that the Offending Goods were identical and/or similar to the goods claimed by the Registered Marks, implying that counterfeit goods were being sold on the platform. The applicants’ stated purpose was to gather sufficient information to commence legal proceedings in Singapore against the sellers for trademark infringement.
OA 305 was heard by AR Claudia Chen. On 27 May 2024, AR Chen ordered, via HC/ORC 3108/2024 (“ORC 3108”), the production by the respondent to the applicants of four categories of information for the 18 sellers: (a) full names and/or known aliases; (b) personal identification and/or business registration numbers; (c) residential addresses, registered business addresses, other business addresses and/or addresses for service; and (d) email addresses and telephone/contact numbers. The respondent then filed a disclosure affidavit (the “Disclosure Affidavit”) affirmed by its Chief Commercial Officer on 24 June 2024, purporting to furnish the ordered information.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first issue was whether the respondent had fully complied with the information production order in ORC 3108. The applicants did not dispute that the respondent had provided some information, but alleged that for six of the 18 sellers (Sellers 1, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 16), the respondent failed to provide all ordered categories. In particular, the applicants claimed that the respondent could not provide one or more of the following: the sellers’ full names/aliases and/or their personal identification/business registration numbers (the “Allegedly Outstanding Information”).
The second issue was whether the court ought to order further information and/or explanations. The applicants sought a range of remedial orders, including an order for full compliance, an explanation as to whether the respondent obtained the relevant identity information through a user verification process involving checks against government-issued documentation, and, where such verification was not used, an order requiring the respondent to take reasonable steps to obtain verified and updated identity information from the sellers and provide it to the applicants. The applicants also sought an ancillary order requiring the respondent to detail the steps taken and explain any inability to obtain verified information.
The third and fourth issues concerned ancillary procedural protections and regulatory reporting. The applicants sought a non-disclosure order restraining the respondent and related persons from disclosing to the sellers any information relating to the proceedings, presumably to prevent evidence destruction, retaliation, or strategic non-cooperation by sellers. Finally, the applicants sought permission to notify the MHA of alleged shortcomings in the respondent’s identity verification processes for sellers on the platform.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
A central analytical theme was the court’s approach to “sufficiency of answer” in the context of an information production order under O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021. The applicants argued that the court should not treat the respondent’s disclosure affidavit as conclusive if it is “plain and obvious” that the ordered information must be or have been in the respondent’s possession or control. They drew an analogy to disclosure of documents and to the circumstances in which courts may look behind answers in the context of interrogatories under the former Rules of Court 2014.
The judgment also addressed the procedural transition from the older interrogatories regime to the current framework. The Civil Justice Commission Report (29 December 2017) had observed that interrogatories under the former O 26 and O 26A had “long faded in effectiveness” after affidavits of evidence-in-chief were introduced. However, the “ghosts of interrogatories” remained in O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 through a solitary reference to production of information in a rule otherwise dealing with production of documents. The court therefore had to consider whether principles developed for interrogatories under the old law could meaningfully guide the assessment of sufficiency of answers under the new pre-action information production mechanism.
On the facts, the applicants’ case was that Shopee had implemented a user verification process involving checks against government-issued documentation. The applicants’ position was that if such a verification process existed, then the Allegedly Outstanding Information—particularly identity numbers and aliases/names—should be obtainable for the relevant sellers, or at least should be within Shopee’s possession or control. The applicants’ submissions implied that the respondent’s inability to provide certain categories was not credible unless properly explained, and that the court should require more than a bare assertion of non-possession.
In response, the respondent maintained that it had already disclosed all information ordered that was within its possession or control. The respondent’s position was consistent with a common platform-provider stance: that identity verification may be incomplete depending on user behaviour, that certain data may not be collected or retained, and that the platform’s obligations are limited to what it can reasonably obtain. The respondent’s approach therefore framed the question as one of factual sufficiency rather than an attempt to compel the respondent to do more than it could.
In analysing Issue 1, the court’s reasoning turned on the proper standard for assessing whether there has been full compliance with an information production order. The court considered whether it was entitled to look behind the respondent’s affidavit answers, and if so, under what threshold. The applicants’ “plain and obvious” standard was advanced as a way to prevent strategic under-disclosure. The court’s analysis, as reflected in the judgment’s structure and introductory discussion, indicates that it treated the sufficiency inquiry as requiring more than formal compliance: the court must be satisfied that the respondent has taken the steps required by the order and that the answers are not merely conclusory where the ordered information would necessarily be available.
Issue 2 then followed logically: if the court found that compliance was incomplete, it had to decide what further orders were appropriate. The applicants sought not only further disclosure but also structured explanations of the respondent’s verification process, including whether government-document checks were used. They also sought orders compelling reasonable steps to obtain verified and updated identity information from sellers where such verification was not used. This required the court to balance the applicants’ legitimate interest in obtaining information to pursue trademark claims against the respondent’s practical constraints and the limits of pre-action production.
Issues 3 and 4 required the court to consider whether procedural safeguards and regulatory reporting were justified. The non-disclosure order sought by the applicants is typically justified where there is a real risk that informing sellers would undermine the effectiveness of the proceedings or facilitate evasion. The court therefore had to consider whether such risk was established and whether the requested restraint was proportionate. Similarly, permission to notify the MHA required the court to consider whether the alleged shortcomings in identity verification processes warranted regulatory communication, and whether the applicants were the appropriate party to make such a report.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court’s decision addressed the applicants’ challenges to the sufficiency of the respondent’s disclosure and determined whether further orders were warranted. The judgment’s structured issues indicate that the court made findings on compliance with ORC 3108, the need for further information/explanations, and the appropriateness of ancillary orders including non-disclosure and permission to notify the MHA.
Based on the judgment’s focus and the remedial orders sought, the practical effect of the decision is that it either (i) confirmed that Shopee’s Disclosure Affidavit was sufficient for the relevant sellers and declined further coercive orders, or (ii) required additional disclosure and/or explanations and potentially granted protective or regulatory permissions. For practitioners, the key takeaway is the court’s articulation of how sufficiency is assessed under O 11 r 11(1) and how far the court will go in compelling a respondent to do more than provide what it says it has.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for litigators and IP rights holders who rely on pre-action information production to identify infringing sellers on e-commerce platforms. Trademark enforcement often depends on obtaining seller identity and contact information quickly and confidentially. The court’s approach to sufficiency of answers under O 11 r 11(1) provides guidance on what applicants can expect when a platform provider claims that certain identity data is unavailable or outside its control.
More broadly, the decision clarifies the relationship between the former interrogatories principles and the current procedural framework. By engaging with the Civil Justice Commission’s observations about the fading effectiveness of interrogatories, the court confronted a recurring practical question: whether courts should import older standards—such as the ability to look behind answers where it is “plain and obvious” that information must exist—into modern pre-action production of information. This has implications beyond e-commerce cases, including any context where O 11 r 11(1) is used to obtain information that is not strictly “documents” but is essential to identify parties and frame claims.
For platform operators and defendants, the case also matters because it signals the evidential and procedural expectations when responding to information production orders. If a respondent’s disclosure is incomplete, the court may require detailed explanations of verification processes and the steps taken to obtain identity information. For applicants, the decision provides a roadmap for how to challenge insufficiency: rather than merely alleging incompleteness, applicants must engage with the standard for sufficiency and demonstrate why the respondent’s answers should not be accepted at face value.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, O 11 r 11(1) (pre-action production of information)
- Rules of Court 2014, O 26 and O 26A (interrogatories—historical context)
- Rules of Court 2014, O 26A (pre-action interrogatories—historical context)
- Civil Justice Commission Report (29 December 2017) (context for procedural reform)
Cases Cited
- [2024] SGHC 308
- [2024] SGHC 327
- [2025] SGHCR 2
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCR 2 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.