LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG)
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Dedar Singh Gill |
| Charges / claim | Damages, Intellectual Property |
| Counsel | Ravindran Associates LLP, Chan Wenqiang, Neo Xuan Hao Edwin, Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy |
Source: [2025] SGHC 122, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHC 122 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 2 July 2025 concerning Damages and Intellectual Property, specifically addressing assessment and trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Dedar Singh Gill. The case was brought by Louis Vuitton Malletier (claimant) against Ng Hoe Seng (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Ravindran Associates LLP. The judgment cites 8 cases (7 Singapore, 1 foreign) and references 4 statutory provisions, including the Australian Copyright Act, the Copyright Act, and the Lanham Act.
[2025] SGHC 122 explained
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2025] SGHC 122) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 2 July 2025. It is categorised under Damages and Intellectual Property. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2025] SGHC 122 about?
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2025] SGHC 122) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Damages — Assessment” and “Intellectual Property — Trade marks and trade names — Remedies — Statutory damages”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHC 122 consider?
The judgment refers to Australian Copyright Act (Cap 63), Copyright Act (Cap 63), Lanham Act, and Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2025] SGHC 122?
Within this corpus, [2025] SGHC 122 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.
Summary
Louis Vuitton sought statutory damages for trade mark infringement after obtaining default judgment against a defendant who sold counterfeit goods through an online platform. The court awarded S$200,000 in statutory damages under s 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, developing a framework for assessing statutory damages that considered the flagrancy of the infringement, the benefit accruing to the defendant, the need for deterrence, and all other relevant matters.
What was decided in [2025] SGHC 122?
[2025] SGHC 122 (LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG)) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2 July 2025 addressing Damages and Intellectual Property, specifically assessment and trade marks and trade names. The judgment was delivered by Dedar Singh Gill.
Who were the parties in LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2025] SGHC 122)?
The claimant in [2025] SGHC 122 was Louis Vuitton Malletier, and the defendant was Ng Hoe Seng. Legal representation included Ravindran Associates LLP. The case was decided on 2 July 2025 in the High Court (General Division).
Which judge decided [2025] SGHC 122?
[2025] SGHC 122 was delivered by Dedar Singh Gill in the High Court (General Division) on 2 July 2025. The case concerned Damages and Intellectual Property.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHC 122 cite?
[2025] SGHC 122 cites 8 prior decisions, including 1 from foreign jurisdictions. It references Australian Copyright Act, Copyright Act, Lanham Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (8)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHC 122)