SINGAPORE: An Instagram seller in Singapore who sold counterfeit luxury goods was ordered to pay Louis Vuitton S$510,000 after the Court of Appeal clarified how trademark damages should be calculated.
The court of three judges more than doubled the damages awarded to Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM), after finding the earlier award of S$200,000 to be inadequate.
The seller, Ng Hoe Seng, had continued selling and advertising counterfeit products even after an injunction was issued and was evasive and uncooperative throughout the proceedings, the court said in a judgment issued on May 6 (Wednesday).
Ng, who operated online stores through Instagram under the username “emcase_sg” and later “emcrafts_sg”, sold and advertised counterfeit products ranging from phone cases to passport covers to spectacle cases.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The case involved 13 registered Louis Vuitton trademarks in nine categories of goods.
In 2023, LVM issued a cease-and-desist letter to Ng after making a trap purchase the previous year.
Emcase then ceased registration and left the Instagram page inactive but continued advertising and selling the products using another Instagram page under a different handle.
After making a second trap purchase, LVM sued Ng for trademark infringement.
In 2023, the High Court ruled in favour of LVM and went on to assess damages. The judgment was entered by default against Ng, who did not file a notice of intention to contest or not.
The High Court then found in 2025 that Ng had committed at least 121 instances of trademark infringement. It awarded LVM S$200,000 in statutory damages.
LVM appealed against the ruling, arguing that it is entitled to a higher sum and that damages should be calculated based on every infringed trademark.
The case then went before the Court of Appeal to determine whether the judge had erred in his interpretation of the Trade Marks Act and in his assessment of the statutory damages awarded.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with LVM’s interpretation of the Act.
"If parliament intended for damages to be assessed on a 'per mark' basis, it would have used clear words to that effect", the court said in its judgment on Wednesday.
It ruled that damages should be assessed based on each type of counterfeit product involved.
It grouped the nine types of counterfeit products into broad categories and assigned amounts based on factors such as the number of sales and amount of advertising, the price gap between the counterfeit and genuine goods, as well as whether LVM sold the same type of products.
It also found that Ng’s infringement to be “highly flagrant” and pointed that his conduct warranted a higher level of statutory damages.
Continue reading...
The court of three judges more than doubled the damages awarded to Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM), after finding the earlier award of S$200,000 to be inadequate.
The seller, Ng Hoe Seng, had continued selling and advertising counterfeit products even after an injunction was issued and was evasive and uncooperative throughout the proceedings, the court said in a judgment issued on May 6 (Wednesday).
Ng, who operated online stores through Instagram under the username “emcase_sg” and later “emcrafts_sg”, sold and advertised counterfeit products ranging from phone cases to passport covers to spectacle cases.
CNA Games
Show More Show Less
The case involved 13 registered Louis Vuitton trademarks in nine categories of goods.
In 2023, LVM issued a cease-and-desist letter to Ng after making a trap purchase the previous year.
Emcase then ceased registration and left the Instagram page inactive but continued advertising and selling the products using another Instagram page under a different handle.
After making a second trap purchase, LVM sued Ng for trademark infringement.
In 2023, the High Court ruled in favour of LVM and went on to assess damages. The judgment was entered by default against Ng, who did not file a notice of intention to contest or not.
The High Court then found in 2025 that Ng had committed at least 121 instances of trademark infringement. It awarded LVM S$200,000 in statutory damages.
LVM appealed against the ruling, arguing that it is entitled to a higher sum and that damages should be calculated based on every infringed trademark.
The case then went before the Court of Appeal to determine whether the judge had erred in his interpretation of the Trade Marks Act and in his assessment of the statutory damages awarded.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with LVM’s interpretation of the Act.
"If parliament intended for damages to be assessed on a 'per mark' basis, it would have used clear words to that effect", the court said in its judgment on Wednesday.
It ruled that damages should be assessed based on each type of counterfeit product involved.
It grouped the nine types of counterfeit products into broad categories and assigned amounts based on factors such as the number of sales and amount of advertising, the price gap between the counterfeit and genuine goods, as well as whether LVM sold the same type of products.
It also found that Ng’s infringement to be “highly flagrant” and pointed that his conduct warranted a higher level of statutory damages.
Continue reading...