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 Judgment: 2 April 2025
- Originating Application No: 305 of 2024
- Summons No: 165 of 2025
- Procedural Posture: Application following an earlier pre-action information production order; summons concerned alleged insufficiency of answers and further procedural directions
- Judges: AR Chong Ee Hsiun
- Hearing Dates: 14 February 2025; 17 March 2025
- Judgment Reserved: 2 April 2025
- Plaintiff/Applicant: L’Oreal; La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique
- Defendant/Respondent: Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd
- Legal Areas: Abuse of Process (Riddick principle); Civil Procedure (disclosure of documents/information; sufficiency of answer); Civil Procedure (interrogatories; relevance of interrogatories principles to O 11 r 11 Rules of Court 2021)
- Statutes Referenced: (Not specified in the provided extract; the judgment is framed around the Rules of Court 2021 and related disclosure/interrogatories concepts)
- Key Procedural Instruments: HC/ORC 3108/2024 (information production order); HC/SUM 165/2025 (summons for further orders); Disclosure Affidavit affirmed 24 June 2024
- Prior Related Authorities Cited: [2024] SGHC 308; [2024] SGHC 327; [2025] SGHCR 2 (this case)
- Judgment Length: 45 pages; 13,201 words
Summary
This decision concerns a pre-action application by trademark proprietors, L’Oreal and La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique, against Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd, an operator of an online marketplace. The applicants sought pre-action production of information relating to specific sellers on the Shopee platform whom they alleged were offering counterfeit cosmetic products bearing signs identical or similar to the applicants’ registered trademarks. After an earlier information production order was granted, the applicants brought a further summons contending that Shopee’s disclosure was incomplete and inadequate, and seeking additional orders to compel fuller compliance, require explanations, restrain disclosure to sellers, and permit notification to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) regarding alleged shortcomings in Shopee’s identity verification processes.
The High Court’s analysis addresses the procedural mechanics of “information production” under Order 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021, including whether older interrogatories principles remain relevant when assessing the sufficiency of answers to an information production order. The court also considers the extent to which it may look behind a disclosing party’s affidavit, and the circumstances in which further directions (including non-disclosure and notification to authorities) are justified. The judgment is therefore significant not only for trademark enforcement in online marketplaces, but also for civil procedure practice around pre-action disclosure and the evidential threshold for “full compliance”.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The applicants are companies incorporated in France and part of a group that manufactures and supplies perfumes, cosmetics, and haircare products. They gave evidence that they are registered proprietors of certain valid and subsisting trademarks in Singapore (the “Registered Marks”). Their case is rooted in trademark enforcement: they alleged that counterfeit goods infringing their trademarks were being sold on the Shopee platform.
The respondent, Shopee Singapore Private Limited, operates an online platform that facilitates sales between buyers and sellers. Shopee’s evidence emphasised that users are independent individuals or businesses not associated with Shopee. This distinction matters procedurally because the applicants’ pre-action disclosure target was not Shopee’s own conduct in selling goods, but the identity and contact details of the sellers who allegedly offered the offending goods.
On 1 April 2024, the applicants filed HC/OA 305/2024 seeking pre-action production of information and documents relating to 18 sellers (referred to as “Sellers”) on the Shopee platform. The applicants asserted that these sellers, without the applicants’ consent, advertised and offered for sale cosmetic products under signs identical and/or similar to one or more of the Registered Marks. The applicants further alleged that the offending goods were identical and/or similar to the goods claimed by the Registered Marks. The applicants’ stated purpose was to gather sufficient information to commence legal proceedings in Singapore against the sellers for alleged infringement of their intellectual property rights.
OA 305 was heard by AR Claudia Chen. On 27 May 2024, AR Chen ordered Shopee to produce specified 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. Shopee then furnished a “Disclosure Affidavit” affirmed by its Chief Commercial Officer on 24 June 2024, purporting to provide the information ordered.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The summons (HC/SUM 165/2025) was brought on 14 January 2025. The applicants’ dissatisfaction focused on alleged incompleteness and inadequacy in Shopee’s answers to the information production order. The overarching issues were whether Shopee had fully complied with the order, whether further information and/or explanations should be furnished, and whether additional protective or regulatory steps should be taken.
First, the court had to determine whether there was full compliance with the information production order in HC/ORC 3108/2024. The applicants identified six sellers (Sellers 1, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 16) for which they claimed Shopee failed to provide one or more categories of information. In particular, they alleged that Shopee could not provide either (i) full names and/or known aliases, and/or (ii) personal identification and/or business registration numbers (the “Allegedly Outstanding Information”).
Second, the court had to decide whether further information and/or explanations ought to be furnished. This included whether Shopee’s disclosure should be supplemented by further steps to obtain verified and updated identity information from the relevant sellers, and whether Shopee should explain the steps taken to obtain such information and, if unsuccessful, why.
Third, depending on the answers to the above issues, the court had to consider whether a non-disclosure order should be granted restraining Shopee and related persons from disclosing to the sellers any information relating to the proceedings. Finally, the court had to consider whether the applicants should be granted permission to notify the MHA of alleged shortcomings in Shopee’s identity verification processes for sellers on the platform.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
A central feature of the judgment is the court’s procedural framing: the applicants’ summons required the court to assess the sufficiency of answers given in response to an “information production order” under Order 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021. The judge noted that interrogatories were abolished under the Civil Justice Commission’s recommendations, yet “ghosts” of interrogatories principles linger in the new rules through a solitary reference to production of information. This prompted a threshold question: whether principles developed under the former interrogatories regime (and related disclosure of documents standards) should guide the court when determining whether a disclosing party’s answers are sufficient under the new Order 11 r 11 framework.
In addressing this, the court considered submissions comparing the “plain and obvious” standard used in disclosure of documents cases with the circumstances in which a court may look behind an answer to interrogatories under the Rules of Court 2014. The applicants argued that, although the “plain and obvious” standard arose in the context of document disclosure, it was consistent with interrogatories jurisprudence and should therefore apply to information production. The applicants’ position was that if it is “plain and obvious” that the allegedly outstanding information must be or have been in Shopee’s possession or control, the court should not accept the disclosing party’s affidavit at face value.
On the facts, the applicants’ argument was anchored in Shopee’s alleged identity verification process. The applicants contended that Shopee had implemented a user verification process involving checks against government-issued documentation. If that were so, it would be “plain and obvious” that Shopee would have access to the sellers’ identity information, including names/aliases and identification or registration numbers. The applicants therefore submitted that Shopee’s inability to provide the Allegedly Outstanding Information for certain sellers suggested either non-compliance or an incomplete disclosure process.
The court’s reasoning also had to address the nature of “possession or control” in the context of information production. Unlike document disclosure, information production may involve data held in systems, records, or verification workflows. The judge’s approach, as reflected in the judgment’s structure, was to treat the sufficiency question as one of whether Shopee had provided all information ordered that was within its possession or control, and whether any gaps were adequately explained. Where the disclosing party asserts that certain information is not available, the court must decide whether that assertion is credible and sufficient, or whether the applicants have shown a basis to require further steps or explanations.
Accordingly, the analysis proceeded issue by issue. For Issue 1 (full compliance), the court examined whether Shopee’s disclosure affidavit answered the categories ordered for each of the six identified sellers. The applicants’ criticism was not merely that Shopee’s disclosure was imperfect, but that it was incomplete in specific categories. The court then considered whether the affidavit’s position should be treated as conclusive, or whether the “plain and obvious” logic justified probing further. For Issue 2 (further information/explanations), the court considered what remedial orders were appropriate if the disclosure was found insufficient—ranging from an order for compliance, to an explanation order, and to a further production order requiring reasonable steps to obtain verified and updated identity information.
For Issue 3 (non-disclosure), the court had to weigh the applicants’ protective rationale against the practical and legal implications of restraining Shopee from communicating with sellers about the proceedings. Such an order is typically sought to prevent evidence tampering or retaliation, but it also raises concerns about overbreadth and interference with ordinary platform operations. The court’s decision on this issue depended on whether the earlier disclosure inadequacies warranted such protective measures.
For Issue 4 (permission to notify authorities), the court considered whether the applicants should be allowed to inform MHA of alleged shortcomings in Shopee’s identity verification processes. This required careful consideration of the boundary between private enforcement and regulatory reporting, as well as the evidential basis for alleging systemic or process-level failures. The court’s approach would necessarily be cautious: permission to notify authorities is a significant step that can have regulatory consequences and reputational impact, and it should be supported by a sufficiently grounded factual and procedural basis.
What Was the Outcome?
The provided extract does not include the court’s final dispositive orders. However, the judgment’s structure makes clear that the court determined each of the four issues: (1) whether Shopee fully complied with ORC 3108; (2) whether further information and/or explanations were required; (3) whether a non-disclosure order should be granted; and (4) whether permission should be given to notify MHA. The practical effect of the outcome would therefore be reflected in the court’s orders on compliance, explanation, any further production steps, and whether protective and notification relief was granted or refused.
For practitioners, the key takeaway is that the court treated the sufficiency of information production as a structured inquiry tied to the categories ordered, the disclosing party’s possession or control, and the adequacy of explanations for any gaps. Depending on the court’s findings on compliance and sufficiency, the applicants’ ability to proceed against sellers would be either facilitated (through further disclosure) or constrained (if the court accepted Shopee’s answers as sufficient).
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters for two overlapping reasons: (i) it is part of the growing body of Singapore jurisprudence on pre-action disclosure in online marketplace trademark enforcement; and (ii) it clarifies how courts should assess the sufficiency of answers to information production orders under the Rules of Court 2021, including whether older interrogatories principles remain relevant.
For intellectual property rights holders, the decision is practically important because the ability to identify infringing sellers is often the bottleneck in initiating proceedings. Pre-action information production orders are designed to overcome that barrier. Where a platform operator provides incomplete identity information, rights holders need to know whether they can compel further disclosure and what evidential showing is required to justify additional orders. This judgment’s focus on “full compliance” and the circumstances in which the court may look behind an affidavit provides guidance for drafting and litigating future summonses.
For civil procedure practitioners, the judgment’s discussion of the “ghosts of interrogatories” and the relevance of interrogatories principles to Order 11 r 11 is a procedural roadmap. It signals that courts will not treat disclosure affidavits as automatically conclusive if the applicants can show that the missing information must be within the disclosing party’s possession or control. At the same time, it underscores that remedial orders such as non-disclosure injunction-like relief and permission to notify authorities are not automatic; they depend on the court’s assessment of the adequacy of disclosure and the justification for further interference or reporting.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 11 r 11(1) (pre-action production of information)
- Rules of Court 2014 (interrogatories framework referenced for comparative principles)
- Civil Justice Commission Report (29 December 2017) (Chairperson: Justice Tay Yong Kwang) (discussion on abolition of interrogatories)
Cases Cited
- [2024] SGHC 308
- [2024] SGHC 327
- [2025] SGHCR 2 (this case)
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.