Judgment Header
Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 15
Court DecisionSGHCR
[2015] SGHCR 15
[2015] SGHCR 15
High Court of Singapore20 Jul 2015Suit No 560 of 2014 (HC/AD 9/2015)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
2Later cases and laws citing this decision
“se statutory damages is an alternative remedy to and mutually exclusive from the traditional remedies of general damages and account of profit (see Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 15 (“Louis Vuitton”) at [45]). There being no such election for statutory damages in the present case, the”
“stant Registrars had crystallised the claimant’s losses in Converse Inc v Ramesh Ramchandani and another [2014] SGHCR 11 (“Converse”) (at [32]) and Louis Vuitton Malletier v Cuffz (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] SGHCR 15 (“Cuffz”) (at [29]–[30]). I agree with them. Such claimants usually enjoy widespread reputation associat”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 560 of 2014 (HC/AD 9/2015)
Case Metadata
Court: High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-07-20
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.