Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 122
- Court: High Court (General Division)
- Originating Claim No: 531 of 2023
- Assessment of Damages No: 9 of 2024
- Judgment Type: Damages — Assessment (statutory damages for trade mark infringement)
- Judges: Dedar Singh Gill J
- Date of Judgment: 2 July 2025 (judgment reserved; hearing dates: 1 November 2024 and 6 December 2024)
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier
- Defendant/Respondent: Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG)
- Legal Areas: Intellectual Property; Trade Marks; Remedies; Statutory Damages
- Statutes Referenced: Trade Marks Act 1998 (2020 Rev Ed) (“TMA”) — ss 31(5) and 31(6) (as reflected in the judgment extract)
- Cases Cited: Not provided in the supplied extract (the judgment references comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada, but specific case names are not included in the excerpt)
- Judgment Length: 68 pages, 16,559 words
Summary
In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2025] SGHC 122), the High Court assessed the quantum of statutory damages for trade mark infringement where the defendant used counterfeit marks. The claimant, Louis Vuitton Malletier, had obtained default judgment after the defendant failed to contest the proceedings. The central issue in the assessment was how a Singapore court should quantify statutory damages under the Trade Marks Act 1998 (TMA), particularly where the defendant’s absence meant there was little evidence to support traditional loss-based calculations.
The court emphasised that Parliament introduced statutory damages to address precisely this evidential difficulty: in cases involving counterfeit trade marks, a claimant should not be required to prove actual losses or obtain an account of profits. However, statutory damages are not meant to be arbitrary. The court therefore applied the statutory framework in ss 31(5) and 31(6) of the TMA, including the statutory limits and the factors governing proportionality and fairness. The court’s analysis also drew on comparative approaches from jurisdictions that have similar statutory damages regimes, including the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada, while ultimately grounding the decision in Singapore’s legislative design.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The claimant is a French-incorporated company and the owner of the “Louis Vuitton” trade mark and related registered marks in Singapore. The defendant, Ng Hoe Seng, was formerly the sole proprietor of a business trading as EMCASE SG (“EMCASE”). EMCASE’s stated business activity was the retail sale of adult clothing, but the claimant’s evidence showed that the defendant also marketed and sold goods bearing signs identical to, or indistinguishable from, the claimant’s registered trade marks.
According to the claimant, the defendant operated an online store through an Instagram page under the username “emcase_sg” (the “EMCASE IG Page”). In or around July 2022, the claimant discovered that the defendant advertised, offered for sale, and exposed for sale various goods—including mobile phone cases, watch straps, purses, pouches, wallets, passport cases, key cases, and card cases—affixed with signs identical to one or more of the claimant’s registered trade marks. The claimant alleged that these were offered without its consent and that the defendant represented, through the Instagram page, that the products were “upcycled” and derived from the claimant’s “authentic” products.
To test the market offering, the claimant arranged “trap purchases” of offending goods. The first set of sample purchases involved 12 items, purchased for a total price of $2,100. After this, the claimant issued a cease-and-desist letter on 21 March 2023 demanding that the defendant stop offering and/or exposing the offending goods for sale. The defendant then caused EMCASE to cease registration as of 26 April 2023, and the EMCASE IG Page became inactive around May 2023.
However, the claimant’s evidence indicated that the defendant continued the infringement using a different Instagram page, “emcrafts_sg” (the “EMCRAFTS IG Page”). On this new page, the defendant continued to advertise and offer the same types of goods bearing the claimant’s marks without consent, and continued to represent that the goods were repurposed from “authentic” second-hand products from the claimant. The claimant conducted a further trap purchase of one offending item (together with another item of a different brand to avoid suspicion), for a total price of $471. The claimant also adduced evidence that the defendant continued these activities up to as recently as May 2024.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The assessment turned on the legal question of how to quantify statutory damages under the TMA where the infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark. The court had to determine whether the statutory damages regime applied and, if so, how to calculate the quantum in a manner that vindicates the claimant’s rights while remaining proportionate and fair to the defendant.
A second issue was evidential and practical: because the defendant was absent and unrepresented throughout the proceedings, the claimant faced the “arduous task” of proving actual losses in the ordinary way, and there was a “dearth of evidence” attributable to the defendant’s non-participation. The court therefore had to consider how Parliament’s statutory damages scheme operates as an alternative to proving actual loss or an account of profits, and how the court should proceed when the evidential record is incomplete.
Finally, the court had to apply the statutory limits and factors in ss 31(5) and 31(6) of the TMA. This included determining the relevant “type of goods or service” for the purpose of the per-type cap, and then weighing the statutory factors—flagrancy, likely loss, benefit to the defendant, and the need for deterrence—to arrive at a final award.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by framing the statutory damages regime as a deliberate legislative response to the difficulties of proof in counterfeit cases. It noted that the claimant had obtained default judgment earlier, and that the court’s task now was not liability but quantum. The court observed that, ordinarily, a claimant seeking damages would need to prove actual losses or obtain an account of profits. Yet Parliament introduced statutory damages to “cater precisely for this situation”, thereby negating the need for proof of actual losses.
In tracing the “genesis” of statutory damages in Singapore, the court explained that the regime was introduced in 2004 as part of legislative changes to fulfil Singapore’s obligations under the US-Singapore Free Trade Agreement. The court relied on parliamentary materials to show that the remedy was designed to complement existing damages and account of profits where those remedies are difficult to apply due to evidential constraints. The court emphasised that statutory damages are compensatory in nature, but they are calculated using the statutory guidelines rather than actual loss proof.
Turning to the statutory framework, the court focused on ss 31(5) and 31(6) of the TMA. Section 31(5)(c) provides that where infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark in relation to goods or services, the claimant may elect statutory damages not exceeding a specified maximum “for each type of goods or service” in relation to which the infringement occurred. The court’s analysis therefore required it to identify the scope of the infringement in terms of goods types and to apply the statutory cap accordingly.
On quantification, the court addressed the absence of a settled Singapore methodology for statutory damages in trade mark cases. The claimant had proposed a “Canadian Scale” approach, relying on Canadian jurisprudence as a starting point, and also sought guidance from comparative UK and US jurisprudence because Singapore’s provisions were modelled on US legislation and because UK trade mark principles are often similar to Singapore’s. The court directed further submissions on UK and US jurisprudence, but ultimately treated comparative scales as aids rather than binding templates. The court’s reasoning reflected a careful balance: comparative approaches may help structure analysis, but the final quantification must be anchored in Singapore’s statutory text and policy.
In applying the factors in s 31(6), the court considered each factor in turn. First, it assessed the “flagrancy of the infringement”. The court’s factual findings (based on the claimant’s evidence and the default posture) pointed to deliberate and sustained conduct: the defendant used multiple Instagram pages, continued marketing after being warned, and offered a range of goods bearing marks identical to the claimant’s registered marks. The court treated these features as aggravating, supporting a higher award to reflect the seriousness of counterfeit trade mark use.
Second, the court considered “any loss that the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer by reason of the infringement”. While statutory damages remove the need to prove actual losses with precision, the court still treated this factor as relevant to proportionality. In the context of counterfeit goods, the court inferred likely harm to brand reputation and goodwill, and the risk of diversion of sales or erosion of market position. The defendant’s absence meant there was no rebuttal evidence, and the court therefore relied on the claimant’s evidence and the inherent nature of counterfeit infringement to evaluate likely loss.
Third, the court considered “any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement”. Again, the defendant’s non-participation limited the availability of direct evidence of profits. The court therefore treated this factor in a practical way: it considered the nature of the conduct and the commercial context, including the trap purchase evidence and the continued marketing, to infer that the defendant likely obtained some benefit from the infringement. The court’s approach reflected the statutory design: the claimant should not be required to prove exact profits, but the court should still consider whether the defendant gained commercially.
Fourth, the court considered “the need to deter other similar instances of infringement”. Deterrence was particularly important in counterfeit cases, where the conduct is often repeatable and where infringers may view the risk of enforcement as low. The court’s reasoning indicated that a meaningful award is necessary to discourage not only the defendant but also others who might be tempted to exploit counterfeit trade marks online.
Finally, the court determined the “final amount to be awarded” by applying the statutory limits under s 31(5). The claimant had argued for a very high quantum based on the Canadian approach (stated as $4,840,000.00), but also recognised that the statutory maximum limit for the case was $2,900,000.00. The court’s analysis therefore had to reconcile the claimant’s proposed methodology with the statutory cap. The court’s conclusion, as reflected in the judgment’s structure, was that the award must be within the statutory maximum and must reflect the s 31(6) factors, rather than simply adopting a foreign scale without adjustment.
What Was the Outcome?
The court awarded statutory damages for trade mark infringement. The practical effect of the decision is that the claimant obtained a monetary remedy without having to prove its actual losses in detail or to produce an account of profits. This aligns with the legislative purpose of ss 31(5) and 31(6) of the TMA, particularly in circumstances where the defendant is absent and evidence is limited.
In setting the quantum, the court applied the statutory limits and weighed the statutory factors—flagrancy, likely loss, benefit, and deterrence—resulting in an award that the court considered proportionate and fair in the context of counterfeit trade mark use.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant because it provides a structured approach to assessing statutory damages for trade mark infringement in Singapore, especially in default or non-participation scenarios. While the TMA clearly authorises statutory damages and sets out factors for quantification, Singapore courts have historically had fewer detailed guidance points on how to translate those factors into a specific quantum. The judgment therefore serves as an important reference for practitioners seeking to frame submissions on quantum under s 31(5) and s 31(6).
For claimants, the case reinforces that statutory damages are designed to overcome evidential barriers. Where defendants do not participate, claimants can still obtain meaningful relief by focusing on the statutory factors and by providing evidence of the nature and extent of counterfeit use (including the range of goods, the duration of conduct, and the flagrancy of infringement). For defendants, the case underscores that absence is not a shield against a substantial award; the court will still evaluate aggravating features and deterrence considerations.
For lawyers and law students, the judgment also illustrates how Singapore courts may use comparative jurisprudence (UK, US, and Canada) as persuasive context while ultimately applying Singapore’s statutory text. The decision therefore has precedent value not only for trade mark remedy assessments but also for the broader methodology of statutory damages quantification under Singapore intellectual property law.
Legislation Referenced
Cases Cited
- Not specified in the supplied extract (the judgment references comparative jurisprudence from the United Kingdom, United States, and Canada regarding statutory damages quantification, but the specific case names are not included in the provided text).
- Copyright Act
- [2014] SGHCR 11
- [2015] SGHCR 15
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 122 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.