TRW & Co · Intellectual property
Trade Mark Infringement Damages in Singapore: Statutory Damages and Account of Profits
Trade mark infringement damages in Singapore can be claimed as compensatory damages, an account of the infringer's profits or, for counterfeit marks, statutory damages capped by the Trade Marks Act. The claimant must elect one. The Court of Appeal's 2026 decision confirmed the caps apply per type of goods and per action, and showed how evidence drives the final figure.
Key pointStatutory damages remove the need to prove exact loss, but the Court of Appeal tied them to a reasonable approximation of the claimant's harm or the infringer's benefit, so product-by-product evidence still decides the award.
At a glance
Three monetary remedies
Claimants elect between compensatory damages, an account of profits and, where a counterfeit mark is used, statutory damages under section 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act.
The statutory caps
Statutory damages cannot exceed S$100,000 for each type of goods or service, or S$1 million in aggregate unless actual loss above S$1 million is proved.
Per type, not per mark
In [2026] SGCA 22 the Court of Appeal held the limits apply per type of goods and per action, rejecting a per-mark multiplier.
Award more than doubled
The Court of Appeal replaced a S$200,000 lump sum with individual awards per type of goods, totalling S$510,000 across nine product types.
Compensate and deter only
Statutory damages aim to compensate and deter, not punish, so awards must bear a reasonable relationship to the claimant's harm or defendant's benefit.
Swipe or scroll →
The short answer: three monetary remedies, one election
Trade mark infringement damages in Singapore come in three forms. A successful claimant can ask for ordinary compensatory damages, for an account of the infringer's profits or, where the infringement involves a counterfeit trade mark, for statutory damages within limits fixed by the Trade Marks Act 1998. The claimant must elect between them; they cannot be stacked.
In May 2026 the Court of Appeal clarified how the statutory limits work and how statutory damages should be assessed, in Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2026] SGCA 22. The decision raised the award from S$200,000 to S$510,000 and confirmed that the caps apply per type of goods or services and per action, not per mark.
This guide explains how each remedy works, how to choose between them and what evidence you need. It builds on our IP litigation practice page, which covers how infringement actions are run.
The legal framework under the Trade Marks Act
Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act 1998 sets out the civil remedies for infringement of a registered trade mark. In addition to an injunction, the court may award damages or an account of profits. The Court of Appeal noted that section 31(4) makes clear that these types of relief are mutually exclusive.
Where the infringement involves the use of a counterfeit trade mark, section 31(5) gives the claimant, at its election, a choice of three remedies: damages together with an account of any profits attributable to the infringement that were not taken into account in computing the damages; an account of profits; or statutory damages.
Section 31(5)(c) caps statutory damages at no more than S$100,000 for each type of goods or service in relation to which the counterfeit mark has been used, and no more than S$1 million in aggregate unless the claimant proves that its actual loss from the infringement exceeds S$1 million. Section 31(6) lists the factors the court must consider when assessing statutory damages.
Section 31(6) factors
- the flagrancy of the infringement;
- any loss the claimant has suffered or is likely to suffer by reason of the infringement;
- any benefit shown to have accrued to the defendant by reason of the infringement;
- the need to deter other similar instances of infringement; and
- all other relevant matters.
Trade mark infringement damages in Singapore are only one part of the relief package. Claimants normally also seek a permanent injunction, delivery up or destruction of infringing goods and costs. Monetary relief is assessed after liability is established, at an inquiry or an account.
What the Court of Appeal decided in 2026
The claimant owned thirteen registered marks in Singapore. The defendant sold phone cases, card holders, key cases, pouches and other accessories bearing those marks through Instagram, presenting them as upcycled. The claimant obtained judgment in default, and the High Court in 2025 held that counterfeit marks had been used and awarded S$200,000 in statutory damages.
On appeal, the claimant argued that the limits should apply per counterfeit mark, which would have raised the ceiling considerably. The Court of Appeal rejected this. Applying a purposive interpretation, it held that the S$100,000 limit applies to each type of goods or service, regardless of how many counterfeit marks appear on them, and the S$1 million limit applies to the action as a whole.
The court explained that statutory damages serve a dual purpose of compensation and deterrence but are not meant to punish. The award must bear a reasonable relationship to the harm caused to the claimant or the benefit derived by the defendant. The number of marks used remains relevant, but as a measure of flagrancy rather than a multiplier.
A more structured assessment
The Court of Appeal criticised the lump-sum approach below because it did not explain how the figure was reached. It applied the section 31(6) factors to each type of goods, grouped the nine types into categories and made individual awards ranging from S$30,000 to S$70,000, producing a total of S$510,000. The judiciary's case brief summarises the reasoning.
Aggravating features included the defendant's misrepresentation that goods were made from authentic materials, his continued selling after an injunction, his conduct in making his account private, and the need for general deterrence given how widely the brand is counterfeited and how easily online platforms facilitate infringement. Because buyers of obvious counterfeits rarely think they are buying the real thing, the court considered harm to exclusivity, reputation and goodwill more relevant than lost sales.
Comparing damages, account of profits and statutory damages
The right election depends on the evidence available and on the defendant's conduct. The table summarises how the three monetary routes for trade mark infringement damages in Singapore compare.
| Remedy | What it measures | Evidence needed | Best suited to |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compensatory damages | The claimant's loss, so far as money can put it back in the position it would have been in | Lost sales, price erosion, reputational harm, or a reasonable licence fee where appropriate | Direct competitors with good sales data and a clear diversion of trade |
| Account of profits | The defendant's profits attributable to the infringement | Defendant's sales, costs and apportionment; often requires disclosure | Defendants with substantial, traceable profits |
| Statutory damages (counterfeits only) | A court-assessed figure within the statutory caps, guided by section 31(6) | Proof of counterfeit use; evidence of flagrancy, scale, benefit and deterrence needs | Defaulting, evasive or record-less infringers, especially online sellers |
Statutory damages are not a shortcut that removes the need for evidence. The Court of Appeal tied the award to a reasonable approximation of the claimant's harm or the defendant's benefit, so trap purchases, sales screenshots, follower counts and pricing comparisons still drive the number.
How to choose the right measure of trade mark infringement damages in Singapore
The election is a strategic decision, not a formality. The best choice depends on four questions.
First, does the case involve a counterfeit mark at all? Statutory damages under section 31(5)(c) are tied to counterfeit trade mark use. Where the defendant used a similar rather than identical sign, the choice is between damages and an account of profits.
Second, what evidence exists of loss or profit? If you are a direct competitor with clear sales data showing diversion of trade, compensatory damages may produce a strong figure. If the defendant ran a profitable operation with traceable records, an account may be attractive. If the defendant kept no records, refused to participate or failed to give discovery, statutory damages exist precisely for that situation.
Third, how many types of goods are involved? Under the 2026 decision, the per-type limit multiplies across distinct types of goods. A seller of one counterfeit product faces a lower ceiling than one who applied the mark to many product categories.
Fourth, what will recovery look like in practice? The best measure of trade mark infringement damages in Singapore on paper is not always the best outcome in the bank. A large award against a defendant with no assets has limited value. Asset searches, and where justified urgent measures such as a freezing order, should be considered early.
From liability to payment: the process
- Establish infringement. Prove ownership of a valid registration and infringing use, typically supported by trap purchases, listings and expert or witness evidence on the goods.
- Obtain judgment on liability. Where the defendant does not contest, judgment in default may be available; otherwise liability is determined at trial.
- Seek interim information. Before electing, consider what is known about the defendant's sales and profits and whether further disclosure is needed to make an informed choice.
- Make the election. Elect between damages, an account of profits and, for counterfeit cases, statutory damages, in line with the court's directions.
- Build the quantum evidence. Assemble evidence matched to the chosen remedy, including the section 31(6) factors for statutory damages, broken down by type of goods.
- Attend the inquiry or account. The court assesses the amount, usually with written evidence and submissions, and may hear cross-examination.
- Enforce the award. Use enforcement tools against assets in Singapore and, where needed, in other jurisdictions where the defendant holds property.
Where Singapore court representation is required, we work alongside Singapore-qualified counsel, coordinating evidence and strategy across the jurisdictions involved.
Evidence that moves the number
Whichever remedy is chosen, the evidence that most often shapes trade mark infringement damages in Singapore falls into a few categories. Gathering it early, while listings and accounts are still live, avoids gaps that are impossible to fill later.
- Trap purchases with receipts, packaging and chain-of-custody records, separated by type of goods.
- Screenshots of listings, prices, stock claims, follower counts and engagement, each dated and with URLs.
- Price comparisons between the infringing goods and the genuine products, which inform the defendant's margin and the likely harm to exclusivity.
- Evidence of whether the claimant sells the same type of goods in Singapore, which affects the loss and grouping analysis.
- Records of demand letters, injunctions and the defendant's response, including any move to new or private accounts.
- For compensatory damages, the claimant's own sales trends, licensing rates and evidence of diverted customers.
Courts are used to imperfect evidence in counterfeit cases, and the Court of Appeal accepted that some imprecision is unavoidable where a defendant does not participate. But a claimant that presents a clear, organised picture gives the court a principled basis to reach a figure towards the upper end of what the evidence supports.
Illustrative scenario: an online seller across five product types
This scenario is illustrative only and does not describe any real business or case.
A sportswear brand finds a social media seller offering caps, socks, water bottles, bags and phone cases bearing its registered logo. The seller ignores a demand letter, keeps posting and does not respond to the claim. The brand obtains judgment in default and an injunction.
The brand has little information about the seller's sales and no direct evidence of diverted customers, because the goods are obviously cheap copies. Statutory damages are the natural election. Applying the 2026 approach, the ceiling is calculated across five types of goods rather than per logo used. The brand's lawyers prepare evidence for each product type: number of listings, prices compared with genuine goods, follower reach, whether the brand itself sells that type of product, and the seller's conduct after the injunction.
The quality of that breakdown, not the existence of the cap, is what will determine the award. Had the brand been a direct competitor with clear evidence of lost sales, compensatory damages might have been worth testing instead, which is why the comparison should be run before trade mark infringement damages in Singapore are elected.
Risks and common mistakes
Assuming the cap is the target
The statutory maximum is a ceiling, not a starting point. The Court of Appeal emphasised that statutory damages must remain a reasonable approximation of the claimant's harm or the defendant's benefit. Claimants who simply ask for the maximum, or a high percentage of it, without a product-by-product analysis of flagrancy, loss, benefit and deterrence are likely to be disappointed. A reasoned breakdown by type of goods makes the claim more persuasive and helps the court explain its award.
Electing before understanding the numbers
Once an election is made, the claimant is generally committed to that route. Choosing statutory damages may leave money on the table if the defendant's profits turn out to be substantial, while choosing an account of profits may produce little if the defendant's costs absorb most of the revenue. Before electing, gather what information you can about sales volumes, pricing and the defendant's business model, and consider whether further disclosure should be sought.
Weak evidence of the defendant's conduct
Flagrancy and deterrence weigh heavily in statutory damages. Evidence that a defendant continued selling after a demand letter or injunction, made an account private to avoid detection, misrepresented goods as genuine or moved to a new account can significantly increase the award. Brands should capture this conduct as it happens, with dated screenshots and records, rather than trying to reconstruct it later.
Ignoring recoverability
An award is only as good as the ability to enforce it. Small online sellers may have few assets, while larger infringers may move funds offshore once proceedings start. Early asset investigation, consideration of interim protective measures and a realistic view of costs recovery should all inform how far to pursue the damages stage, and whether an early settlement with undertakings is the better commercial outcome.
Cross-border infringers
Many counterfeit sellers operate across borders, with manufacturing in one country, stock held in another and sales directed at Singapore buyers online. A Singapore judgment may need to be enforced abroad, and parallel proceedings may be needed in markets where the brand also holds registrations.
Border measures can help stem supply. Singapore Customs can seize suspected infringing goods on notice from a registered trade mark owner or licensee, after which the rights holder must commence proceedings. For a wider enforcement plan, see our brand protection and trade mark strategy practice pages, our guide to legal options against dupes and lookalikes, and our note on online infringement.
Checklist for brand owners
- Confirm your registrations cover the goods and services being counterfeited, and keep them renewed with IPOS.
- Document trap purchases, listings, prices and follower reach for each type of goods.
- Record the defendant's conduct after demand letters and court orders.
- Before electing, compare likely outcomes under damages, an account of profits and statutory damages.
- Build quantum evidence product by product, mapped to the section 31(6) factors.
- Investigate assets early and plan enforcement, including abroad.
To assess the likely range of trade mark infringement damages in Singapore for your case, or to plan the election, contact TRW & Co.
Frequently asked questions
01What damages can I claim for trade mark infringement in Singapore?
You can claim compensatory damages for your loss or an account of the infringer's profits. Where the infringement involves a counterfeit trade mark, you can instead elect statutory damages under section 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, which the court assesses within statutory limits. These monetary remedies are mutually exclusive, so you must elect one. Injunctions, delivery up of infringing goods and costs are usually sought alongside the monetary remedy.
02What are the limits on statutory damages for trade mark counterfeiting?
Statutory damages cannot exceed S$100,000 for each type of goods or service in relation to which the counterfeit mark was used, and cannot exceed S$1 million in aggregate unless the claimant proves its actual loss exceeds S$1 million. In 2026 the Court of Appeal confirmed that the first limit applies per type of goods or service, not per mark, and the aggregate limit applies per action.
03Do I need to prove my losses to get statutory damages?
You do not need to prove exact loss or the infringer's exact profits, which is why statutory damages suit cases where the defendant kept no records or did not participate. However, the court must consider flagrancy, the claimant's loss, the defendant's benefit and deterrence, and the Court of Appeal held the award must reasonably approximate the harm or benefit. Evidence on those factors still matters greatly.
04When should I choose an account of profits instead of damages?
An account of profits suits cases where the infringer made substantial, traceable profits from the infringement, possibly more than you lost. It focuses on the defendant's gain rather than your loss. It can be less attractive if the defendant's costs absorb most revenue or records are poor. Because the election generally binds you, gather what information you can about the defendant's sales before choosing.
05Can statutory damages be claimed for every trade mark infringement?
No. Under section 31(5) of the Trade Marks Act, statutory damages are tied to infringements involving the use of a counterfeit trade mark. Where the defendant used a similar rather than identical sign, or the case otherwise falls outside the counterfeit provisions, the claimant typically chooses between compensatory damages and an account of profits.
06Does the number of counterfeit marks on a product increase the damages?
Not as a multiplier. The Court of Appeal in 2026 rejected the argument that the statutory limits apply separately to each counterfeit mark. The number of marks used can still be relevant as an indicator of the flagrancy of the infringement, which is one of the factors the court weighs when deciding where within the limits the award should fall.
Sources and official materials
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2026] SGCA 22 — Court of Appeal on statutory damages limits and assessment
- Judiciary case brief: Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng — Summary of the issues, reasoning and S$510,000 award
- Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng [2025] SGHC 122 — High Court decision on upcycled goods and the initial award
- Trade Marks Act 1998 — Section 31 remedies, statutory damages and section 31(6) factors
- IPOS: Trade Marks — Registration and management of trade marks
- Singapore Customs: Border Enforcement of IP Rights — Seizure of suspected infringing goods on notice
General information only, current as at 20 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer–client relationship. Singapore law and regulatory practice change; check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.
