On 2 July 2025, the High Court of Singapore in Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Ng Hoe Seng ruled on statutory damages for selling goods online that carried counterfeit versions of a luxury brand’s trade marks. Ng Hoe Seng, the person behind EMCASE SG, ran an Instagram store called emcase_sg which offered items described as “upcycled” but marked with signs identical to Louis Vuitton’s registered trade marks.
The court explained what qualifies as a counterfeit mark under Singapore law, how the statutory maximum for damages applies under the Trade Marks Act, and why foreign approaches like the Canadian tariff system do not override local rules. It made clear that describing goods as “upcycled” does not change their status if a registered trade mark is used without consent.
Background to the Louis Vuitton trademark infringement
Louis Vuitton is the registered owner of multiple trade marks in Singapore covering a wide range of goods including bags, wallets, key cases, watch straps and other accessories.
Ng Hoe Seng operated a business under the name EMCASE SG, which sold goods through Instagram. In July 2022, Louis Vuitton discovered that EMCASE SG was selling products such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders, pouches and other items using signs identical or very similar to Louis Vuitton’s registered marks.
The defendant claimed these goods were made by repurposing material from genuine Louis Vuitton products, describing them as “upcycled”. Louis Vuitton did not authorise this. The company’s representative carried out trap purchases in July 2022, buying twelve items for $2,100.
A cease-and-desist letter was sent in March 2023. . EMCASE SG was deregistered shortly after but the sales continued through a new Instagram account under the name EMCRAFTS SG. Another trap purchase confirmed that the defendant continued offering the same type of products in 2024.
Ng Hoe Seng did not file any defence or attend court. The High Court entered default judgment for Louis Vuitton on 30 November 2023, leaving only the assessment of damages. Louis Vuitton chose to claim statutory damages instead of having to prove actual loss or an account of profits.
How statutory damages work under Singapore law
Singapore’s statutory damages framework for counterfeit trade mark cases was introduced in 2004 to help rights holders claim compensation when proving the exact financial loss is impractical. Under Singapore trade mark law, a brand owner can claim statutory damages of up to S$100,000 for each type of goods sold with a counterfeit mark. There is an overall limit of S$1 million unless the owner can prove that actual loss is higher.
When awarding statutory damages, the court must consider whether the infringement was deliberate or repeated, whether any loss was suffered or likely, whether the infringer benefited, the need to deter similar infringements, and any other relevant facts.
A “counterfeit trade mark” under Singapore law means a sign that is identical with or so nearly resembling the genuine registered mark that it is likely to deceive, used without the trade mark owner’s consent, and applied to make the goods appear genuine.
Whether the marks were counterfeit
The court found that the signs used on the defendant’s goods were exact copies or close imitations of Louis Vuitton’s registered marks. The goods were neither made by Louis Vuitton nor licensed by it. The way the marks were placed matched how Louis Vuitton applies them on genuine products. This was enough for the court to find that the marks were counterfeit under Singapore trade mark law.
The defendant argued that the goods were made by “upcycling” genuine materials. The court held this did not matter. If the final goods were made and sold without consent and carried the identical or nearly identical mark, they were counterfeit under the Act. Any disclaimer about using old material or recycling did not change this.
The statutory limits and foreign comparisons
Louis Vuitton asked the court to adopt a broader reading of the statutory limit by treating each trade mark used as triggering a separate limit. This would have increased the maximum award to nearly $3 million. The High Court rejected this approach. Unlike the United States Lanham Act, Singapore’s Trade Marks Act does not use the phrase “per counterfeit mark per type of goods”. The plain text says damages are capped at $100,000 for each type of goods, with an overall limit of $1 million. That limit does not multiply just because more than one mark was copied.
Louis Vuitton also asked the court to apply the “Canadian Scale”, which sets standard sums for counterfeit sales depending on whether the infringer is a street vendor, shop operator or large distributor. The court declined to do so. The Canadian Scale applies in a system without statutory damages for trade marks and is meant to estimate normal compensatory loss. Singapore’s statutory scheme is different because Parliament set a maximum limit and listed specific factors the court must apply. Those cannot be replaced by a flat tariff from another jurisdiction.
How the court decided the final amount
The court considered all five statutory factors,
On flagrancy, the court found the conduct was deliberate and repeated. The defendant continued selling after receiving the cease-and-desist letter, closed one business and reopened under a new name on social media, used multiple marks and ignored the entire lawsuit.
On loss, the court accepted that for luxury goods it is hard to show that each counterfeit sale replaced a genuine sale. Many buyers of cheap counterfeits would never pay for a genuine Louis Vuitton product. The real damage is to goodwill, reputation and the exclusivity of the mark.
On benefit, there was clear benefit to the defendant from the sales, but the exact profit was impossible to prove because the defendant gave no disclosure.
On deterrence, the court noted that statutory damages under the Act are not purely about compensation. They are also meant to deter others from using fake versions of well-known marks, especially when the defendant does not cooperate.
On other matters, the repeated use of disclaimers about “upcycling” did not help. The court confirmed these did not prevent the marks from being counterfeit under the Act.
After applying all the factors, the court found that the defendant had sold nine different types of goods using the counterfeit marks. This meant the statutory ceiling in the case was S$900,000 ( nine types at up to S$100,000 each). However, the court considered the circumstances and awarded S$200,000, not the maximum, as a proportionate sum that still reflected the seriousness of the infringement and the need for deterrence.
What the decision shows
The decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier vs Ng Hoe Seng shows how Singapore trade mark law deals with counterfeit marks when actual loss is difficult to prove and the seller does not cooperate. In this case, the defendant, Ng Hoe Seng, operated an online account under the name EMCASE SG, which sold counterfeit goods. The court made clear that once a mark is proven counterfeit, excuses about “upcycling” or “repurposing” do not change the legal outcome. Singapore’s statutory damages rules set clear caps but still allow the court to award the maximum when the conduct is flagrant and repeated.
For brand owners, the case shows the importance of gathering proof through trap purchases, tracking ongoing sales, and demonstrating how the marks are copied. For anyone selling superfake luxury goods, the ruling makes clear that describing products as “upcycled” or “repurposed” does not reduce the risk of being held liable for using counterfeit marks in Singapore.
Source: