Singapore High Court’s Take on Trade Mark Infringement Arising from “Upcycled” Products

The High Court of Singapore recently issued the judgment for Louis Vuitton Malletier v Ng Hoe Seng (formerly trading as EMCASE SG) [2025] SGHC 122. A copy of this judgment can be located here - https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2025_SGHC_122

Ng Hoe Seng (“NHS”) offered products such as phone cases, card wallets and passport covers bearing trade marks belonging to Louis Vuitton Malletier (“LVM”) via his business “EMCASE SG”. The trade marks include LVM’s iconic monogram featuring the intertwined “LV” letters and floral motifs. Despite a cease-and-desist letter issued by LVM at an early stage, NHS did not stop selling these products. Instead, NHS shut down his existing Instagram page and set up a new Instagram page to continue sales. LVM later brought a claim against NHS, which NHS did not defend against.

Whilst the judgment predominantly dealt with assessment of damages for trade mark infringement committed by NHS, the issue of “upcycling” was also discussed in detail. “Upcycling” generally refers to the process of transforming an old or used product into a new product (sometimes of higher value). 

In essence, NHS sold his products with representations that they were upcycled products derived from or repurposed from “authentic” second-hand products from LVM. In this regard, the High Court held that:-

→ even if LVM’s material was used on NHS’s products, this does not change the fact that they are not LVM’s genuine products. The minute NHS uses LVM’s material in an unauthorized manner to make his own products, these products are NHS’s own; 

→ NHS referring his products as upcycled products cannot operate as a free pass to negate his false representation, which is inherent in the very use of LVM’s trade marks on products that are not LVM’s genuine products. Otherwise, many trade mark counterfeiters would be able to escape a finding of liability all too easily; and

→ in any event, some of the products which NHS represented to be upcycled were not even derived from LVM’s genuine products. 

Ultimately, NHS’s reference to his products as upcycled products, even if possibly considered a “disclaimer” that his products were not actually LVM’s genuine products, has no place in the inquiry as to whether he has used counterfeit trade marks. The High Court eventually awarded LVM SGD200,000 in damages. 

Whilst upcycling remains popular by and large, businesses partaking in this trend should be cautious of the risks involved, including infringing trade mark rights belonging to other brands.