On claiming high statutory damages: Be a little more moderate, says lawyer
15 August 2025
Daniel Lim | co-managing director @ Joyce A. Tan & Partners, Singapore
According to Daniel Lim, co-managing director at Joyce A. Tan & Partners in Singapore, there is a temptation for claimants to ask for high statutory damages. “It may be wiser to be a little more moderate,” he said.
Lim was reacting to the recent trademark infringement case involving luxury brand Louis Vuitton (LV) and Hoe Seng Ng, a Singapore-based online seller who sold fake LV products on Instagram, passing them off as genuine. Among the items he peddled were phone cases, card holders and purses, which he sold at significantly lower prices using two Instagram accounts.
The Singapore High Court decided in favour of LV and, in July 2025, ordered Ng to pay LV S$200,000 (US$155,800) in damages. LV sought S$2.9 million (US$2.3 million) in damages, based on 29 acts of trademark infringement. According to Justice Dedar Singh Gill, S$2.9 million is excessive.
“It is important to bear in mind that this case was about statutory damages, not about the ordinary way that actual damages in IP cases are quantified,” noted Lim.
He explained that it was difficult for the global fashion company to prove actual damages as the defendant was absent and non-cooperative.
LV discovered Ng’s illegal activities in 2022 and sent a cease-and-desist letter. Refusing to cooperate, Ng opened a new Instagram account and continued selling the counterfeit LV goods. The fashion house then filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in 2023. Still, Ng remained uncooperative, refusing to appear in court.
“Without evidence from the defendant, it is difficult for LV to prove actual damages. As such, LV relied on statutory damages,” Lim pointed out.
Statutory damages do not exceed S$100,000 (US$77,900) for each type of goods. It also cannot exceed in the aggregate S$1 million (US$779,000) unless higher actual damages can be proven. In this case, nine categories of goods were involved: phone case, watch strap, passport cover, key case, card wallet, purse, phone bag, spectacle case and cigarette case. Therefore, the highest aggregate could only have been S$900,000 (US$701,100).
“The court looked at this perspective of the scheme for statutory damages and saw that the original amount claimed of S$2.9 million exceeded the maximum limit by a very large margin. The court also examined LV’s method of how it arrived at the original claim and rejected it,” said Lim.
“Significantly, the court noted that someone who buys a ‘knock off’ would not necessarily have otherwise bought a genuine product,” he added. “So, it would be difficult for a claimant to say that the sale of these counterfeit goods and/or the profits earned from them would have otherwise been made by the claimant. This is a good reason for some moderation,” Lim stressed.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
