Meryl Koh quoted in WTR on Singapore Court of Appeal ruling on statutory damages for counterfeit goods and assessment framework under Trade Marks Act
20 May 2026
Our Intellectual Property and Disputes Director, Meryl Koh, was quoted in World Trademark Review (WTR) on a Singapore Court of Appeal decision clarifying the statutory damages framework and assessment methodology in a trademark infringement case involving counterfeit goods.
The case concerned Louis Vuitton’s appeal over statutory damages arising from the sale of upcycled counterfeit goods by an Instagram store operator (EMCASE). The Court of Appeal considered whether damages should be assessed on a “per mark” basis or by “type of goods”. The Court of Appeal rejected the “per mark” approach and confirmed that statutory damages are to be assessed on a “per type of goods” basis under the Trade Marks Act. It increased the total award from S$200,000 to S$510,000 and clarified that statutory damages are not intended to be punitive.
Meryl noted that while the ruling does not introduce new principles, it clarifies the legislative intent underpinning the statutory damages regime in cases involving counterfeit goods and statutory damages. She further noted that “Despite a dearth of evidence to assess the claimant’s loss or the defendant’s gain, the Court of Appeal undertook a detailed analysis of factors that would affect the award of statutory damages.”
She added that the decision provides “much-needed guidance for future cases” in determining a quantum for statutory damages, but she was also of the view that “This decision will not drastically change enforcement strategies.”
On deterrence and the Court’s approach to statutory damages, Meryl noted that “Brand owners also need not feel unduly distressed by the court’s emphasis that statutory damages are not meant to be punitive… Singapore courts will still take into account the fact that the award on damages needs to deter – both the defendant counterfeiter as well as other counterfeiters generally – from recurrent counterfeiting conduct.”
You may click here to read the full article.