Latest news with #LVM
Singapore Law Watch
07-07-2025
- Business
- Singapore Law Watch
High Court orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton $200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods
High Court orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton $200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods Source: Straits Times Article Date: 07 Jul 2025 Author: Toh Yong Chuan The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items. An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay $200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Mr Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at $159, compared with $560 to $945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth $2,100 from Mr Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Mr Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Mr Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded $4.84 million in damages but claimed $2.9 million against Mr Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at $100,000 each, the statutory cap. But Justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of $2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on July 2. He limited the maximum award to $900,000, or $100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding $200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Mr Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Mr Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. Justice Gill also addressed Mr Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Justice Gill criticised Mr Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Mr Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Edwin Neo Xuan Hao from Ravindran Associates. Mr Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the $200,000. As at July 3, Mr Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. Toh Yong Chuan is The Straits Times' assistant business editor, covering manpower, political and policy issues, and law. He is an advocate and solicitor of the Supreme Court. Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction. Print
AsiaOne
07-07-2025
- Business
- AsiaOne
High Court orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton $200k in damages over counterfeit goods, Singapore News
SINGAPORE - An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay $200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Mr Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at $159, compared with $560 to $945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth $2,100 from Mr Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Mr Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Mr Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded $4.84 million in damages but claimed $2.9 million against Mr Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at $100,000 each, the statutory cap. But Justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of $2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on July 2. He limited the maximum award to $900,000, or $100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding $200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Mr Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Mr Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Mr Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. Justice Gill also addressed Mr Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Mr Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. Justice Gill criticised Mr Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Mr Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Edwin Neo Xuan Hao from Ravindran Associates. Mr Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the $200,000. As at July 3, Mr Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. This article was first published in The Straits Times . Permission required for reproduction.
Business Times
06-07-2025
- Business
- Business Times
High Court orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton S$200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods
[SINGAPORE] An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay S$200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at S$159, compared with S$560 to S$945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth S$2,100 from Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded S$4.84 million in damages but claimed S$2.9 million against Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at S$100,000 each, the statutory cap. But justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'The claimant's proposed quantum of S$2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on Jul 2. He limited the maximum award to S$900,000, or S$100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding S$200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. Justice Gill also addressed Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Justice Gill criticised Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Edwin Neo Xuan Hao from Ravindran Associates. Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the S$200,000. As at Jul 3, Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. THE STRAITS TIMES
The Star
06-07-2025
- Business
- The Star
High Court in Singapore orders Instagram seller to pay Louis Vuitton S$200,000 in damages over counterfeit goods
SINGAPORE: An Instagram seller who sold fake Louis Vuitton items as authentic and ghosted the High Court during court proceedings has been ordered to pay S$200,000 in damages to the French luxury fashion house for trademark infringements. Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. The fakes were passed off as genuine and sold at a fraction of the price of the real items – a fake passport cover, for instance, was priced at $159, compared with $560 to $945 for the real thing. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the infringements in July 2022 and conducted a sting operation. A representative made test purchases worth $2,100 from Ng's first Instagram account 'emcase_sg'. LVM confirmed the goods were counterfeit and issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. Instead of stopping, Ng shifted operations to a new Instagram account, 'emcrafts_sg', and resumed sales. To catch him again, an LVM representative made a second undercover purchase. The company later filed a lawsuit in August 2023. Ng ignored the proceedings and did not appear in court. On Nov 30, 2023, the High Court ruled in LVM's favour and went on to assess damages. Computing its damages, LVM said it should be awarded $4.84 million in damages but claimed $2.9 million against Ng – based on 29 infringing acts at $100,000 each, the statutory cap. But Justice Dedar Singh Gill disagreed with the claims. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of $2.9 million is grossly excessive,' he said in a written judgment on July 2. He limited the maximum award to $900,000, or $100,000 for each of the nine different types of goods where there were infringements, ultimately awarding $200,000. While LVM argued that the counterfeits dilute its brand, the judge questioned the financial impact. 'I have my doubts as to whether the claimant will suffer lost sales in any significant way... knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods.' He added: 'One must bear in mind that the defendant is a sole proprietor operating through a social media channel. He is not a large-scale manufacturer who has distributed the offending goods to other retailers and sparked other chains of infringement.' In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. 'The defendant's modus operandi when it came to promoting his products was to re-post Instagram posts and/or stories by customers who had purchased his products... ostensibly with the aim of thanking them and showing off their rave reviews,' he said. 'In my view, this has the effect of compounding the defendant's false representations.' He added that Ng had 'deployed his coterie of 'influencers' to propagate the misrepresentation about his 'authentic' products more widely to his followers and the public at large'. In his judgment, Justice Gill highlighted the deceptive marketing tactics Ng used to promote the fake products on Instagram. Justice Gill also addressed Ng's claim on Instagram that the products were 'upcycled' from real Louis Vuitton goods. 'This was a lie upon a lie which compounded the false representation perpetrated upon members of the public,' he wrote. Upcycling typically refers to the reuse of discarded material or waste to create a product of higher value or quality than the original. The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. 'Such online retailers can easily spread out all of their eggs in multiple baskets by setting up different online platforms at relatively low costs to sell their goods,' he said. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach to continuing his infringement – in that even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Ng Hoe Seng, operating under Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold counterfeit goods such as phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses through the social media platform. Justice Gill criticised Ng for flouting a previous court order by making his Instagram account private – while still allowing his followers to view it. 'It was clearly an attempt by the defendant to mask his infringing activities (and potentially continue the infringement).' The judge also rebuked Ng over his refusal to take part in the legal proceedings. 'The defendant did not participate in any part of these proceedings, thus depriving the claimant of an opportunity to discover the full extent of his infringement to prosecute its claim and quantify its losses,' he wrote. 'A strong message needs to be sent to the defendant that he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law.' The judge further warned of the risks posed by online sellers who can easily evade enforcement. Justice Gill concluded: 'The defendant has shown himself to be a recalcitrant infringer, and he will need to face the consequences accordingly.' LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Neo Xuan Hao Edwin from Ravindran Associates. Ng was unrepresented. Despite the High Court victory, it remains uncertain whether LVM will recover the $200,000. As at July 3, Ng's registered business EMCASE SG has ceased registration with the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority and his two known Instagram accounts have vanished. However, a similarly named account – ' – remains active, appearing to sell Louis Vuitton-branded goods. - The Straits Times/ANN
Malay Mail
06-07-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
In Singapore, Louis Vuitton wins S$200,000 fight against ‘recalcitrant' Instagram counterfeit seller
SINGAPORE, July 6 — A Singapore-based Instagram seller who marketed counterfeit Louis Vuitton products as authentic and ignored a lawsuit has been ordered to pay the luxury fashion house S$200,000 (RM662,500) in damages for trademark infringement. The Straits Times reported today that Ng Hoe Seng, who operated through the Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and 'emcrafts_sg', sold fake phone cases, passport covers, card holders and purses at a fraction of the price of genuine Louis Vuitton goods. For example, a counterfeit passport cover was priced at S$159 — compared to the authentic version, which retails for between S$560 and S$945. Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) discovered the counterfeit operation in July 2022 and conducted a sting, buying S$2,100 worth of items through Ng's first account. After confirming the items were fake, the company issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023. But Ng simply switched to another Instagram account and resumed operations. A second undercover purchase led to LVM filing a trademark infringement lawsuit in August 2023. Ng failed to participate in any part of the court proceedings. On November 30, 2023, the Singapore High Court ruled in LVM's favour. On July 2, Justice Dedar Singh Gill awarded damages of S$200,000, far short of the S$2.9 million LVM had claimed based on 29 alleged infringements. 'The claimant's proposed quantum of S$2.9 million is grossly excessive,' the judge wrote, as reported by The Straits Times. While the statutory cap for each infringement is S$100,000, the judge limited the award to nine categories of goods, making the maximum possible S$900,000. Justice Gill also cast doubt on the financial harm to LVM, noting that 'knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with the genuine goods'. In his judgment, the judge described Ng as 'a recalcitrant infringer' who engaged in 'deceptive marketing tactics', including reposting rave reviews from customers and enlisting influencers to promote the fake goods as authentic. Ng had also claimed the items were 'upcycled' from genuine Louis Vuitton material — a claim the court dismissed as 'a lie upon a lie'. According to The Straits Times, Justice Gill criticised Ng's behaviour, including making his account private while allowing followers to continue viewing posts, calling it 'an attempt... to mask his infringing activities'. He warned that online infringers pose a unique enforcement challenge. 'An online retailer can avail himself of a hydra-like approach... even if one head is sliced off, another can easily spring up.' Ng was unrepresented in court. LVM was represented by lawyers Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang and Neo Xuan Hao Edwin of Ravindran Associates. Despite the court victory, it remains unclear whether LVM will recover the S$200,000. The Straits Times said, as of July 3, Ng's business, EMCASE SG, has been deregistered and both Instagram accounts mentioned in court have disappeared. However, a similarly named account — ' — remains active and appears to be selling Louis Vuitton-branded items.
