Instagram Seller Ordered to Pay Louis Vuitton $200K for Selling Counterfeit Goods in Singapore
A Singapore-based seller who peddled counterfeit Louis Vuitton (LV) products on Instagram has been slapped with a S$200,000 damages bill after failing to show up in High Court. The court ruled in favour of the French luxury brand following trademark infringement claims against the seller, Ng Hoe Seng.
Ng allegedly marketed fake LV merchandise as genuine through Instagram accounts “emcase_sg” and “emcrafts_sg”. Items included passport holders, phone cases, card wallets, and purses—sold at a fraction of the authentic prices. A counterfeit passport cover, for example, was going for just S$159, while a real LV one typically ranges from S$560 to S$945.
In July 2022, Louis Vuitton Malletier discovered the ongoing infringement and executed a sting operation. Their representative made undercover purchases totalling S$2,100 via Ng’s first account. After verifying that the goods were fake, the brand issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023.
Seller Resumes Operation with New Account After Warning
Instead of halting operations, Ng simply launched a new account, “emcrafts_sg”, and continued pushing counterfeit items. Once again, an LV representative conducted a second undercover buy to obtain fresh evidence of infringement. Legal proceedings followed in August 2023, but Ng failed to attend any hearings or respond to the lawsuit.
During the assessment of damages, Louis Vuitton argued for S$2.9 million in statutory damages, citing 29 separate infringements at S$100,000 per act. However, High Court Justice Dedar Singh Gill dismissed the figure as excessive, capping damages at S$900,000—one count for each of the nine distinct product types. Ultimately, the court awarded S$200,000.
The judge noted that while counterfeits could dilute brand prestige, the financial loss was not necessarily direct. “Knock-offs of luxury goods are usually not substitutable with genuine products,” he remarked, suggesting the target audience for fakes often would not purchase the originals anyway.
Deceptive Marketing and Social Media ‘Influencers’ Under Scrutiny
Justice Gill criticised Ng’s promotional tactics, which included reposting customer reviews and showcasing endorsements by so-called influencers to give the impression of authenticity. “The defendant’s modus operandi compounded his misrepresentations,” said the judge, describing the approach as calculated and misleading.
Ng had even falsely claimed that the items were “upcycled” from real Louis Vuitton materials—a claim the judge slammed as “a lie upon a lie”. The court ruled this narrative further deceived consumers and added to the gravity of the trademark violations.
Making matters worse, Ng flouted a prior court order by setting his Instagram accounts to private while still enabling access for his followers. Justice Gill described this move as a deliberate attempt to mask continued infringement and evade enforcement.
Court Sends Strong Warning Against Repeat Infringers
Justice Gill condemned Ng’s refusal to participate in the legal process, stating that his absence hindered the brand’s ability to assess the full scale of losses. “A strong message needs to be sent… he may be able to run from the claimant, but he will not be able to hide from the long arms of the law,” he said.
The court labelled Ng a “recalcitrant infringer” and expressed concern over how easily online sellers can restart operations under new identities. The judge warned that online counterfeiters often adopt a “hydra-like” model—cut off one platform and another pops up.
Ng’s business, EMCASE SG, has since been de-registered from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority (ACRA), and the two known Instagram accounts have disappeared. However, a suspiciously similar account, “emcrafts.sg”, remains active at the time of writing and appears to continue marketing LV-branded goods.
Luxury Brands and Authorities Facing Challenge of Digital Counterfeits
This case highlights the ongoing battle luxury fashion brands face in the digital age, where social media platforms provide a convenient yet unregulated marketplace for knock-off goods. Singapore’s legal system has made it clear that infringers will be held accountable, but enforcement remains a challenge when sellers ghost court proceedings or shift between accounts.
Louis Vuitton was represented by Ravindran Muthucumarasamy, Chan Wenqiang, and Edwin Neo Xuan Hao from Ravindran Associates. Ng appeared in court unrepresented.
It remains to be seen whether Louis Vuitton will successfully recover the awarded S$200,000, given that the defendant appears to have gone underground. Nonetheless, the High Court’s ruling sends a strong signal to would-be infringers: even in the digital world, justice will catch up eventually.