Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 2
- Title: L’OREAL & Anor v SHOPEE SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED
- Court: High Court (General Division)
- Originating Application No: 305 of 2024
- Summons No: 165 of 2025
- Judgment Date(s): 14 February 2025; 17 March 2025; judgment reserved; 2 April 2025
- Judges: AR Chong Ee Hsiun
- Applicants/Claimants: L’OREAL; La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique
- Respondent/Defendant: Shopee Singapore Private Limited
- Procedural Posture: Application to address alleged inadequacies in a prior pre-action information production order and related ancillary relief
- Legal Area(s): Civil Procedure; Disclosure of documents/information; Interrogatories principles; Abuse of process; Pre-action discovery
- Key Procedural Instrument: Information production order under O 11 r 11(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 (made by AR Claudia Chen in HC/ORC 3108/2024)
- Length: 45 pages; 13,201 words
- Headings/Issues Framed by the Court: Abuse of Process — Riddick principle; Sufficiency of answer; Relevance of interrogatories principles to O 11 r 11 Rules of Court 2021; Whether further information/explanations should be furnished; Whether non-disclosure order should be granted; Whether permission should be given to notify authorities
Summary
This decision concerns an application arising from a pre-action information production order obtained by trademark owners against an online marketplace operator. The Applicants, L’Oreal and La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique, alleged that counterfeit cosmetic products were being offered for sale on the Shopee platform under signs identical or similar to their registered trademarks. To identify the relevant sellers, the Applicants sought pre-action production of information and documents from Shopee.
After an Assistant Registrar ordered Shopee to produce specified categories of information about 18 targeted sellers, Shopee filed an affidavit purporting to comply. The Applicants then brought SUM 165/2025, contending that Shopee’s answers were incomplete and inadequate for certain sellers. They sought (among other relief) an order compelling full compliance, requiring explanations about Shopee’s identity verification processes, further production of verified identity information, ancillary non-disclosure restraints, and permission to notify the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) about alleged shortcomings in Shopee’s seller identity verification.
The High Court (AR Chong Ee Hsiun) addressed four core questions: (1) whether Shopee fully complied with the information production order; (2) whether further information and/or explanations should be furnished; (3) whether a non-disclosure order should be granted; and (4) whether the Applicants should be permitted to notify MHA. The court’s analysis turned on the sufficiency of Shopee’s “answers” to the information production order, the extent to which older interrogatories principles remain relevant under the Rules of Court 2021, and the proper use of court-ordered disclosure mechanisms in the context of pre-action proceedings.
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 valid and subsisting trademarks in Singapore (the “Registered Marks”). Their case was that certain sellers on the Shopee platform were offering for sale cosmetic products that allegedly infringed their trademarks by being advertised under signs identical and/or similar to the Registered Marks, and by involving goods that were identical and/or similar to the goods claimed by those marks. The Applicants’ overarching objective was to obtain sufficient information to commence proceedings in Singapore against the relevant sellers for trademark infringement.
The Respondent, Shopee Singapore Private Limited, operates an online marketplace platform that facilitates sales between buyers and sellers. Shopee’s evidence emphasised that its users are independent individuals or businesses not associated with Shopee. In other words, Shopee positioned itself as a platform operator rather than a direct participant in the alleged infringement, while still being the entity with access to seller identity information through its platform processes.
On 1 April 2024, the Applicants filed HC/OA 305/2024 seeking pre-action production of information and documents relating to 18 users (referred to as “Sellers”) on the Shopee platform. The Applicants alleged that these Sellers, without the Applicants’ consent, advertised and offered for sale the “Offending Goods” under signs identical and/or similar to the Registered Marks. The Applicants contended that the Offending Goods were counterfeit and that the sellers were therefore infringing the Applicants’ intellectual property rights.
OA 305 was heard by AR Claudia Chen. On 27 May 2024, AR Chen ordered Shopee to produce four categories of information about the Sellers: (a) full names and/or any other 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 filed an affidavit affirmed by its Chief Commercial Officer on 24 June 2024 (the “Disclosure Affidavit”), purporting to furnish the ordered information.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The High Court framed its determination around four issues. First, it had to decide whether Shopee had “full compliance” with the information production order made in ORC 3108/2024. This required the court to assess whether Shopee’s Disclosure Affidavit provided all ordered information for each of the targeted sellers, with particular focus on the Applicants’ allegation that certain categories of information were missing for specific sellers.
Second, the court had to determine whether, even if there were deficiencies, further information and/or explanations ought to be furnished. This included whether Shopee should be required to explain whether its user verification process involved checks against government-issued documentation, and whether Shopee should take reasonable steps to obtain verified and updated identity information from sellers where it had not obtained such information through the verification process.
Third, the court considered whether a non-disclosure order should be granted to restrain Shopee and related persons from disclosing to the sellers any information relating to the proceedings. Such an order is often sought to preserve the integrity of pre-action processes and prevent interference with evidence or the ability of claimants to identify and pursue alleged infringers.
Fourth, the court had to decide whether the Applicants should be granted permission to notify MHA of alleged failures or inability by Shopee to verify seller identities against government-issued documentation. This raised questions about the appropriate scope of court-granted relief in private litigation and the relationship between civil disclosure orders and regulatory reporting.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
A central feature of the court’s reasoning was the interaction between the pre-action information production regime under the Rules of Court 2021 and the older procedural concepts associated with interrogatories. The judgment noted the Civil Justice Commission’s observation that interrogatories under the former Rules had “long faded in effectiveness” after affidavits of evidence-in-chief were introduced. However, the court observed that “ghosts of interrogatories” still lingered in O 11 r 11 of the Rules of Court 2021, because that provision contains a reference to production of information in an order otherwise dealing with production of documents.
Against this background, the court addressed a practical question: whether principles developed under the former interrogatories framework could guide the court when assessing the sufficiency of answers given in response to an information production order under O 11 r 11(1). The court indicated that parties were invited to submit on this issue and that it found the submissions helpful. The court’s approach was to treat the sufficiency of the Disclosure Affidavit not as a matter of mere formal compliance, but as a question that could, in appropriate circumstances, permit the court to look behind the disclosing party’s assertions.
In relation to Issue 1 (full compliance), the Applicants’ core complaint was that Shopee had not been able to provide one or two categories of information for certain sellers—specifically, full names/aliases and/or personal identification/business registration numbers. The Applicants argued that the court was not bound to accept the conclusiveness of Shopee’s position in its affidavit where it was “plain and obvious” that the ordered information must be or have been within Shopee’s possession or control. The Applicants relied on the logic of disclosure of documents jurisprudence and argued that a similar standard should apply to information production responses.
The court’s analysis therefore required careful attention to the nature of the information ordered and the extent of Shopee’s control over it. In pre-action disclosure contexts, the disclosing party typically has access to platform records and user-submitted data, but may not have access to government-issued verification outcomes unless its processes involve such checks. The court had to determine whether Shopee’s answers were consistent with what the order required and whether any gaps could be explained by the limits of Shopee’s systems or whether they suggested non-compliance.
For Issue 2 (further information/explanations), the court considered whether Shopee should be required to furnish additional explanations about its identity verification process. The Applicants sought an “Explanation Order” compelling Shopee to explain whether its verification process involved checks against government-issued documentation. They also sought a “Further Production Order” requiring Shopee to take reasonable steps to obtain verified and updated identity information from the relevant sellers where it had not obtained such information through the verification process, and an “Ancillary Order” requiring Shopee to detail the steps taken and explain any inability to obtain such information.
In assessing these requests, the court would have had to balance several considerations: the purpose of pre-action disclosure (to enable claimants to identify defendants and formulate claims), the proportionality of further disclosure measures, and the practical feasibility of obtaining updated identity information from third parties (the sellers). The court’s reasoning also had to consider whether the Applicants were effectively seeking to convert a pre-action information production order into a broader investigative or compliance regime, which might exceed what the Rules of Court contemplate.
For Issue 3 (non-disclosure), the court considered whether the non-disclosure order should be granted. Such relief is typically justified where disclosure to the opposing party or relevant third parties would undermine the utility of the disclosure process. The Applicants sought to restrain Shopee and persons related to it from disclosing to the sellers any information relating to the proceedings. The court’s analysis would have turned on whether the circumstances justified such an order, including whether there was a real risk of interference, and whether the order was necessary and proportionate.
For Issue 4 (permission to notify authorities), the court addressed whether the Applicants should be permitted to inform MHA of alleged shortcomings in Shopee’s identity verification processes. This required the court to consider the proper boundaries of private civil proceedings and whether permission to notify a regulator was an appropriate remedy in the context of a pre-action disclosure dispute. The court’s reasoning would have had to account for the fact that the Applicants’ allegations concerned verification processes and potential regulatory compliance, which are not always directly enforceable through civil discovery orders.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court’s decision resolved the four issues by determining whether Shopee’s Disclosure Affidavit amounted to full compliance with ORC 3108/2024, and whether further orders were warranted to address any inadequacies. The court also decided whether to grant the ancillary relief sought by the Applicants, including the non-disclosure order and permission to notify MHA.
While the provided extract does not include the final dispositive paragraphs, the structure of the judgment indicates that the court proceeded issue-by-issue: first on compliance, then on further information/explanations, then on non-disclosure, and finally on notification to authorities. The practical effect of the outcome is that claimants and platform operators alike gain guidance on the sufficiency standard for responses to O 11 r 11 information production orders and on the circumstances in which additional coercive or regulatory-facing relief may be granted.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case matters for practitioners because it clarifies how the High Court will scrutinise a platform operator’s responses to pre-action information production orders under the Rules of Court 2021. In trademark enforcement against online sellers, claimants often face a recurring problem: the identity information needed to sue is held by the platform, but the platform’s ability to provide verified identity details may depend on its onboarding and verification processes. The decision therefore provides a framework for assessing whether a disclosure affidavit is merely a formal statement of “what is available” or whether the court may require more substantive compliance.
Second, the judgment is significant for its engagement with the “Riddick principle” and the sufficiency of answers concept. By addressing whether interrogatories principles remain relevant under O 11 r 11, the court offers guidance on how older procedural doctrines may inform modern disclosure of information. This is particularly relevant where a disclosing party claims that certain information is not available, and the claimant argues that it must be within the disclosing party’s possession or control.
Third, the case has practical implications for the scope of ancillary relief in pre-action proceedings. The Applicants sought not only further disclosure but also restraints on disclosure to sellers and permission to notify a regulator. The court’s treatment of these requests will influence how future applicants draft and justify ancillary orders, and how respondents structure their verification processes and disclosure affidavits to reduce the risk of further court intervention.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, O 11 r 11(1)
- Rules of Court 2014 (referenced contextually, including former O 26 and O 26A; and O 26A pre-action interrogatories)
Cases Cited
- (Not provided in the supplied extract.)
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.