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 – “emcrafts.sg” – 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.
4812