LOUIS VUITTON MALLETIER v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG)

Facts

Louis Vuitton Malletier owns 13 registered Louis Vuitton trade marks in Singapore. Ng Hoe Seng, the sole proprietor of EMCASE SG, sold goods bearing signs identical to those marks through an Instagram store, and later through a second account after a cease-and-desist letter of 21 March 2023. There were nine types of goods, including phone cases, watch straps, key cases, pouches and a cigarette case. Louis Vuitton sued in HC/OC 531/2023, and as Mr Ng did not respond it obtained judgment in default with an injunction and an inquiry. Mr Ng kept advertising the goods even after learning of the injunction, and switched the second account to private.

Louis Vuitton elected statutory damages for use of a counterfeit trade mark under s 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, which caps such damages at $100,000 for each type of goods or service and $1 million in the aggregate unless actual loss is shown to be higher. The High Court judge found at least 121 instances of infringement, rejected Louis Vuitton's argument that the caps apply per mark (which it said gave a limit of S$2.9m), took the limit as S$900,000 for nine types of goods, and awarded S$200,000 without explaining how he reached that figure. Louis Vuitton appealed in Civil Appeal No 30 of 2025, seeking S$1.45m, or S$675,000 if the per-mark reading failed. Mr Ng appointed a solicitor only for the appeal and asked for the judgment to be upheld.

Issues

1. Whether the statutory damages caps in s 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act apply per counterfeit mark.
2. Whether the judge erred in assessing statutory damages as a single lump sum of S$200,000.
3. What amount of statutory damages should be awarded for each type of goods.

Holding

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. It upheld the judge's reading that the S$100,000 cap applies per type of goods and the S$1m cap per action, but set aside the award of S$200,000 and substituted an award of S$510,000. As Louis Vuitton succeeded on only one of two issues, costs were fixed at S$40,000 (all-in) payable by Mr Ng.

Reasoning

Applying the purposive approach, the court found that the plain words of s 31(5)(c) set the limit for each type of goods and cap damages in any action, and that the singular references to a mark in the opening words only describe the action that triggers the regime. The other remedies in s 31 compensate the claimant or strip the defendant's profit, and are mutually exclusive; statutory damages should likewise bear a reasonable relationship to the claimant's loss or the defendant's gain. A per-mark reading could produce punitive awards, since the number of marks copied depends on how the owner uses its marks. The Minister's 2004 speech stressed compensatory principles, and Parliament did not copy the US Lanham Act's express per-mark wording or its punitive features, such as a higher limit for wilful infringement. US awards and the Canadian scale were therefore of little help.

On quantum, the court broadly agreed with the judge's analysis of the s 31(6) factors but held that a lump sum without regard to the different goods was not principled; damages should be assessed for each type of goods. The infringement was highly flagrant: the goods were sold online to large audiences, labelled LV and promoted as made from authentic materials, though testing showed at least two trap purchases were not. Most aggravating was Mr Ng's disregard of the proceedings and the injunction. Against that, his operation appeared limited to his own online store. Starting a little above S$50,000 per type of goods, the court grouped the goods into four tiers according to sales and advertising evidence, price differences and whether Louis Vuitton sells that type of goods, awarding most for phone cases, key cases and pouches and least for cigarette cases.

From the judgment