LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG)
Outcome
Appeal allowedthe appeal is allowed.
Source: [2026] SGCA 22, Court of Appeal, decided 6 May 2026. Read directly from the judgment.
Featured in the weekly digest — week of 4–10 May 2026 →
Key facts
| Court | Court of Appeal |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judges | Ang Cheng Hock, Hri Kumar Nair, Steven Chong |
| Charges / claim | Damages, Statutory Interpretation, Intellectual Property |
| Outcome | Appeal allowed |
| Counsel | I.R.B. Law LLP, Ravindran Associates LLP, Chan Wenqiang, Quek Liuyong Uthai, Ravindran s/o Muthucumarasamy |
Source: [2026] SGCA 22, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) [2026] SGCA 22, decided on 6 May 2026, the Court of Appeal — comprising Justices of Appeal Steven Chong, Ang Cheng Hock, and Hri Kumar Nair (who delivered the judgment) — examined the correct interpretation of statutory damages for trade mark infringement involving a counterfeit mark. The High Court had assessed damages at S$200,000 under s 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (2020 Rev Ed), but Louis Vuitton Malletier appealed, arguing it was entitled to S$1.45 million. The appeal centred on whether the statutory cap applies on a per-goods or per-act basis, requiring purposive construction of the Trade Marks Act.
[2026] SGCA 22 explained
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2026] SGCA 22) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 6 May 2026. It is categorised under Damages, Statutory Interpretation, and Intellectual Property. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. 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 [2026] SGCA 22 about?
LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) ([2026] SGCA 22) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Damages — Assessment”, “Statutory Interpretation — Construction of statute — Purposive approach”, 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 [2026] SGCA 22 consider?
The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Interpretation Act (Cap 1), Prevention of Corruption Act (Cap 241), and TMA plainly supports the Per Goods Interpretation and the Per Act, among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 22 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 12 and [2025] SGHC 122. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How does Singapore's Court of Appeal interpret statutory damages for trade mark counterfeiting under the Trade Marks Act ([2026] SGCA 22)?
In Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2026] SGCA 22, the Court of Appeal, led by Hri Kumar Nair JCA, revisited the statutory damages framework under s 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, addressing whether damages of up to S$1.45 million are calculated per goods or per infringing act using a purposive interpretive approach.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (18)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 22)