Louis Vuitton sues unit of SGX-listed ValueMax over alleged trademark infringement

Global luxury and fashion goods company Louis Vuitton has sued a wholly owned subsidiary of mainboard-listed ValueMax Group : T6I 0% in the Singapore High Court for trademark infringement and passing off.

Louis Vuitton, known popularly as LV, is taking issue with two pieces of jewellery sold or offered for sale by ValueMax Retail, which LV claimed to be in direct competition with its jewellery business.

In its statement of claim filed in mid-September, LV alleged that ValueMax Retail had in July and August 2024 at its Yishun Street 22 store offered for sale these pieces of jewellery that were affixed with signs identical or similar to one or more of LV’s marks.

The suit had a case conference on Tuesday (Dec 16).

LV has four trademarks registered in Singapore: the “LV” monogram and three graphical motifs.

It claimed that the store sold a gold charm and offered for sale at least one other piece of jewellery – a pair of gold earrings – on Aug 5, 2025.

These are counterfeits that infringed its trademarks, LV alleged.

LV said its brand is one of the world’s most valuable and is also one of the most counterfeited luxury brands in the world.

There is therefore a need to deter similar infringement, as its reputation and goodwill will be damaged by counterfeit goods.

LV further alleged that ValueMax Retail had made misrepresentations to the public that the jewellery in question were LV goods or that there was an economic association or relationship between the jewellery and LV.

This would not only create confusion for the consumer, but also damage LV’s interest and dilute the distinctive character of its trademarks.

It claimed that it has suffered or is likely to suffer loss and damage.

The French behemoth said it is entitled to statutory damages under the Trademarks Act, which are up to S$100,000 for each type of goods or service in relation to which the trademark has been infringed, and up to S$1 million in total unless the claimant proves that its actual loss from such infringement exceeds S$1 million.

It is seeking an inquiry into the damages, an account of profits made by ValueMax Retail from the sale of the alleged counterfeits, or statutory damages.

It is also applying for an injunction to restrain ValueMax Retail from infringing the LV trademarks, passing off or attempting to pass off the defendant’s goods as LV’s and misrepresenting as having an economic association or relationship with the French company.

It is seeking an order for the delivery and forfeiture of all goods, materials or articles with ValueMax Retail in relation to the alleged counterfeits.

The other order it is seeking is for the full disclosure by ValueMax Retail of all of its trademark infringements and passing off.

The information sought includes the particulars of suppliers or those offered to supply the allegedly infringing goods, the particulars of buyers, distributors or exporters dealing with ValueMax Retail in the alleged counterfeits, and details of dealings in alleged infringing goods.

ValueMax Retail rebuts all allegations

ValueMax Retail denied infringing LV’s trademarks or passing off, pointing out that the items under dispute had symbols that were neither identical nor similar to any of the LV marks.

In its defence, it said it is a dealer in second-hand jewellery made of gold and precious stones, as well as branded watches and branded bags, buying these from various parties, including other second-hand dealers, pawnshops and consumers.

The store accused of selling counterfeits is a pawnshop with sales counters, it said.

It claimed that it made no representations as to the origin of the alleged counterfeits, nor any alleged economic association or relationship between the jewellery and LV.

ValueMax Retail rejected the claim that it is in direct competition with LV, as the nature of its business is different from that of the French group.

Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Man fined for posting vape content on social media, possession of vapes