[2026] SGMC 115

District Judge Kelly Ho:

[1] This was a trade mark (“TM”) infringement case involving a company, Gem Story Biz Pte. Ltd. (“the Company”), and its director and majority shareholder, Tan Bee Khim (Chen Meiqin) (“Mdm Tan”), aged 51, who had over a sustained period of at least nine months sold and possessed for the purpose of trade a substantial quantity of goods bearing falsely applied TMs belonging to Sanrio Company, Ltd. (“Sanrio”) across three retail outlets. Mdm Tan was no stranger to intellectual property offences, having been previously convicted of multiple charges under the Trade Marks Act and Copyright Act. That prior brush with the law did not deter her. She went on to commit similar offences by sourcing and procuring the said goods and exposing them for sale through three physical storefronts manned by several employees under her charge.

[2] On 15 June 2026, the Company pleaded guilty to 14 charges, six counts of selling any goods to which a registered TM is falsely applied under s 49(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (“TMA”) and eight counts of having in possession for the purpose of trade such goods under s 49(c) of the TMA. The Company also consented to having 61 charges under s 49(b) and (c) of the TMA taken into consideration (“TIC”) for the purpose of sentencing. The proceeded charges read as follows:

You […] are charged that you, on or around [date of offence], at [offence location] did sell to one [name of purchaser], [goods in question] to which registered Trade Mark Nos. [trade mark numbers and class] were falsely applied, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 49(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1998.

You […] are charged that you, on or around [date of offence], at [offence location] did have in your possession for the purpose of trade, [goods in question] to which registered Trade Mark Nos. [trade mark numbers and class] were falsely applied, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998.

[3] Mdm Tan pleaded guilty to 14 corresponding charges, six counts of selling any goods to which a registered TM is falsely applied under s 49(b) read with s 107(4) of the TMA and eight counts of having in possession for the purpose of trade such goods under s 49(c) read with s 107(4) of the TMA. Mdm Tan also consented to having 61 charges under s 49(b) and (c) read with s 107(4) of the TMA taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing. The proceeded charges read as follows:

You […] are charged that you, a director of GEM STORY BIZ PTE. LTD. (Singapore UEN 201918765W), which on or around [date of offence], at [offence location] had committed an offence of selling to one [name of purchaser], [goods in question] to which registered Trade Mark Nos. [trade mark numbers and class] were falsely applied in breach of Section 49(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, which offence was committed with your connivance, and you have thereby, by virtue of Section 107(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, committed an offence punishable under Section 49(b) of the Trade Marks Act 1998.

You […] are charged that you, a director of GEM STORY BIZ PTE. LTD. (Singapore UEN 201918765W), which on or around [date of offence], at [offence location] had committed an offence of having in its possession for the purpose of trade, [goods in question] to which registered Trade Mark Nos. [trade mark numbers and class] were falsely applied in breach of Section 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, which offence was committed with your connivance, and you have thereby, by virtue of Section 107(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1998, committed an offence punishable under Section 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998.

[4] The Prosecution sought a fine of $1,000 per charge and a total fine of $14,000 in respect of the Company, and imprisonment terms of between one and five months per charge and a global imprisonment term of 10 months in respect of Mdm Tan. The Defence urged the Court to impose a global fine of $13,000 on the Company and an aggregate custodial term of three to five months in respect of Mdm Tan. I imposed a fine of $13,000 payable by 13 July 2026 and an order of attachment to levy in default of payment on the Company, and eight months’ imprisonment against Mdm Tan. I granted Mdm Tan’s request for a one-month deferment of the commencement of sentence for her to make arrangements in respect of her business and daughter. The Offenders appealed against their respective sentences and were granted a stay of the sentences. Mdm Tan was also granted bail pending the appeal.

[5] The salient portions of the Joint Statement of Facts (“the SOF”) which the Offenders admitted to without qualification were as follows:

(a) The Company was an exempt private company limited by shares primarily in the business of “Retail Sale in Other Non Specialised Stores”, incorporated in Singapore on 11 June 2019. Mdm Tan was a director, secretary and shareholder of the Company since its date of incorporation.

(b) Sanrio was the registered proprietor in Singapore of various registered TMs, including those that the Offenders had infringed, and had engaged a private investigation firm to apply for summonses against the Offenders. These registrations (collectively referred to as the “Sanrio TMs”) were at all material times valid and subsisting.

(c) From an unknown date until at least 26 January 2024, the Company had, with Mdm Tan’s connivance, exposed for sale various products bearing unauthorised representations of the Sanrio TMs at three physical stores at Bukit Panjang Plaza, Bugis Junction and 18 Tai Seng (“the Stores”) which were the Company’s place of business.

(d) On 22 April 2023, Sanrio’s investigators visited the Stores and made sample purchases thereat. The sample purchases were examined and confirmed by the Senior Manager, Legal Affairs Department of Sanrio, to be goods to which the Sanrio TMs were applied without Sanrio’s consent and were not genuine goods of Sanrio. The sample purchases were thus goods to which the Sanrio TMs were falsely applied (“infringing items”) and were sold to the investigators by the Company.

(e) On 21 July 2023, upon Sanrio’s application, search warrants were issued in respect of the Stores. That same day, members of the Intellectual Property Rights Branch (“IPRB”) of the Singapore Police Force executed the search warrants at the Stores. A total of 397, 669 and 560 items bearing Sanrio TMs were seized from the Bukit Panjang store, Bugis Store and Tai Seng Store, respectively, including masks, recyclable bags, cup holders, mouse pads, cleaning cloths, hooks, storage boxes, plastic bags, containers, pouches, phone cases and wrapping paper. The items were in the Company’s possession for the purpose of trade and were confirmed to be infringing items.

(f) On 16 August 2023, Sanrio’s investigator visited the Bugis Store and purchased several items which were later confirmed to be infringing items. On 4 September 2023, upon Sanrio’s application, a second search warrant was issued in respect of the Bugis Store. On 5 September 2023, IPRB executed the search warrant at the Bugis Store. A total of 335 items bearing Sanrio TMs were seized thereat including masks, mouse pads, foldable storage boxes, cleaning cloths and plastic bags. The items were confirmed to be infringing items.

(g) On 26 January 2024, Sanrio’s investigators visited the Bukit Panjang Store and the Bugis Store and purchased several items which were later confirmed to be infringing items.

(h) At all material times, Mdm Tan was the Company’s director and shareholder and was involved in the day-to-day running of its business and affairs. She hired several employees to man and operate the Stores. Mdm Tan procured and sourced for the infringing items and was responsible for exposing them for sale at the Stores. She failed to verify at the material time whether the suppliers of these products were authorised by Sanrio or if the products were authentic.

(i) There were 2,034 items with falsely applied Sanrio TMs across the various purchases and seizures, with a total value of $6,604.

[6] An offence under both s 49(b) and (c) of the TMA carries a fine not exceeding $10,000 for each infringing item (but not exceeding in the aggregate $100,000) or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or both. An offence under those sections read with s 107(4) of the TMA carries the same prescribed punishment.

[7] On 6 June 2013, Mdm Tan was convicted of 28 charges under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) (“2005 TMA”) read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) (“PC”) and five charges under s 136(2)(a) of the Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) (“CA”) read with s 109 of the PC. Twenty charges under s 49(c) of the 2005 TMA read with s 109 of the PC and one charge under s 136(2)(a) of the CA read with s 109 of the PC were taken into consideration for sentencing. Custodial terms ranging from one day to 12 months were imposed in respect of the individual charges and the global sentence was 20 months’ imprisonment. For the 2005 TMA charges, custodial terms of between one day and four months were imposed in respect of the individual charges with two of the four-month terms ordered to run consecutively.

[8] Section 49(c) of the 2005 TMA is the predecessor of s 49(c) of the TMA while s 109 of the PC provides for the punishment of abetment of an offence. Section 136(2)(a) of the CA is the offence of selling or exposing for sale by way of trade any article which the offender knew or ought reasonably to know to be an infringing copy of a copyrighted work. As such, the antecedents were relevant for the purpose of sentencing.

[9] The Company was untraced.

[10] The Prosecution sought a fine of $1,000 per charge in respect of the Company, resulting in an aggregate fine of $14,000 and custodial terms of between one and five months against Mdm Tan, resulting in a total sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment.

[11] Relying on the High Court case of Goik Soon Guan v PP [2015] 2 SLR 655 (“Goik”), the Prosecution highlighted that deterrence was the dominant sentencing consideration for trademark infringement cases.

[12] In respect of the Company, the Prosecution referred to PP v Nat Gifts [2016] SGDC 353 (“Nat Gifts”) where the District Court held that:

(a) the fine imposed should be at least equal to the total value of the infringing items;

(b) it should be “sufficiently stiff so as to deter other would-be offenders” and

(c) as there was a high volume of infringing items involved (13,052), it would not be appropriate to calibrate the fine on a per item basis.

[13] In Nat Gifts, the Court applied a multiplier of approximately twice the total value of the infringing items (approximately $13,800) and imposed a global fine of $27,000.

[14] As regards Mdm Tan’s sentence, the Prosecution referred to the sentencing framework for s 49(c) TMA offences set out in Goik in which the sentencing court should:

(a) first, consider the “nature and extent of the infringements, and the manner in which the infringements were carried out”; and

(b) second, examine whether there are any other relevant aggravating or mitigating factors.

[15] The starting point was to consider the offender’s level of involvement in the operation and the indicative sentencing ranges are as follows:

Where the offender was merely an employee.

Where the offender owned and operated the business, but the scale of the business was generally small.

Where the offender ran a relatively large scale or complex operation, and/or was heavily involved in the levels of the “trade or manufacture” of counterfeit products, including manufacturing or sourcing for the products, distributing the products to other retailers and/or selling the infringing products.

[10] to 20 months’ imprisonment

[16] Reference was also made to Tan Wei v PP [2016] 3 SLR 450 (“Tan Wei”) where the High Court emphasised that the indicative sentences in Goik merely provided a starting point and the sentence imposed should take into account the following non-exhaustive factors:

a. the size of the offender’s business;

b. the number of employees in the offender’s business;

c. the financial figures relating to the offender’s business (in terms of both revenue and profits);

d. whether a syndicate was involved;

e. the number of infringing articles involved;

f. the nature and value of the infringing articles;

g. the duration of the infringement;

h. the manner of infringement and the degree of permanence in the offender’s dealings with the infringing articles (eg, whether the offender had a shopfront); and

i. whether compensation was made to the affected trade mark owners.

[17] In submitting for a fine of $1,000 per charge and a global fine of $14,000 against the Company, the Prosecution applied a multiplier of approximately twice the total value of the infringing items (approximately $6,604).

[18] In respect of Mdm Tan, the Prosecution submitted that the custodial threshold was crossed as the business operated out of three physical shop fronts with a degree of permanence and Mdm Tan had hired several employees to man the stores. As Mdm Tan was the director and majority shareholder of the Company and managed all aspects of the business from sourcing and procuring the infringing items to distributing and selling them, the Prosecution pegged her involvement level as moderate. The following aggravating factors were raised by the Prosecution:

a. A total of 2,034 items were seized.

b. The offending period lasted at least nine months, from 22 April 2023 to 26 January 2024.

c. Mdm Tan was traced for intellectual property offences under the CA and TMA in 2013 and was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. (Note: The total sentence for Mdm Tan’s 2013 conviction was 20 months’ imprisonment, eight months of which was attributable to TMA charges and the remaining 12 months’ imprisonment was for a CA charge.)

d. She continued selling infringing items even after the various raids.

e. There were 61 similar charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

f. Mdm Tan did not make any restitution.

[19] However, recognising that the infringing items were of relatively low value, the Prosecution sought sentences of between one and five months’ imprisonment per charge with three sentences to run consecutively, resulting in a global sentence of 10 months’ imprisonment. According to the Prosecution, this sentence was broadly in line with the sentences imposed in Goik, Tan Wei, Nat Gifts and two other cases referenced in the annex to the Prosecution’s Sentencing Submissions.

[20] In the Joint Mitigation Plea, the Defence submitted for a total fine of $13,000 for the Company with no breakdown and a global sentence of between three and five months’ imprisonment with individual sentences of half a month to two months’ imprisonment (three to run consecutively) against Mdm Tan. When addressing the Court orally, Defence Counsel provided a breakdown of approximately $980 per charge for the fine against the Company.

[21] In respect of Mdm Tan, the Defence agreed that the Goik framework applied but contended that she was “in the low to higher-end of the low range in respect of culpability”. It bears noting that the starting point ranges in the Goik framework pertained to an offender’s level of involvement and not his/her culpability (see [32] of Goik). While an offender’s level of involvement would affect his/her culpability, it is a much narrower concept than the latter. This is an important distinction as will be elaborated upon in the next section. As regards the Company, the Defence submitted that a multiplier of two as applied in Nat Gifts was appropriate.

[22] In support of its sentencing position, the Defence first sought to distinguish the precedents cited by the Prosecution before highlighting the following factors:

(a) Nature of shops: Only a small percentage (approximately 10%) of the shop space and other resources in the Stores was allocated to selling the infringing items.

(b) Mdm Tan’s role: She had taken a backseat in administrative and operational matters and was focusing on her family and home after her husband deserted the family in 2019.

(c) Number of infringing items: The number of infringing items was the lowest amongst all but one of the precedents and the latter case involved counterfeit luxury goods where a smaller quantity would be expected given their higher value. Additionally, many of the infringing items were part of very old stock from past purchases that were not detected and/or disposed of as the Company had a rudimentary inventory and stocking system. Mdm Tan and the Company tried to source items from licensed or authorised suppliers in China but there would often be a significant number of infringing items mixed with the non-counterfeit items. Only 2,034 infringing items of generally low value were seized.

(d) Value of infringing items: Not only was the value of the items low (at $6,604), so were the profits made.

(e) Duration of offending and repeated raids: Following the first raid, no restocking was done. Hence, the infringing items seized during the subsequent raids were those that were not seized previously and not that new infringing items were brought in.

(f) Mdm Tan’s antecedents: She reoffended only almost 10 years later on a far smaller scale.

(g) Others: Mdm Tan was forthcoming and cooperative and both she and the Company had pleaded guilty.

[23] Upon considering the written and oral submissions of the Prosecution and the Defence, I agreed with the Defence’s global position in respect of the Company and the Prosecution’s position on the individual sentences in respect of Mdm Tan.

[24] Instead of imposing the same fine per charge (approximately $980) as suggested by Defence Counsel during his oral submissions, I imposed a fine of $1,300 for the charges involving more infringing items or higher values (MSC 900479, 900481, 900499, 900500, 900518 and 900519 of 2024) and a fine of $650 for the charges involving fewer items or lower values (MSC 900471, 900492, 900511, 900535, 900541, 900550, 901233 and 901238 of 2024), to arrive at an aggregate fine of $13,000.

[25] As for Mdm Tan’s global sentence, I ordered a different combination of sentences to run consecutively from what was submitted by the Prosecution. Instead of running a four-month sentence (MSC-900419-2024) consecutively with sentences of one and five months (MSC-901240-2024 and MSC-900418-2024, respectively), I ran a two-month sentence (MSC-900460-2024) consecutively, resulting in a global custodial term of eight instead of the 10 months that the Prosecution sought.

[26] Deterrence is the dominant sentencing consideration in TM infringement cases (Goik at [19] to [20]):

[19] The value of a robust intellectual property protection framework cannot be overstated as intellectual property continues to increase in strategic importance against traditional business advantages such as geographical location and abundance of natural resources. As we strive to develop our intellectual property laws to suit an increasingly global environment (see, for example, George Wei, “A Look Back at Public Policy, the Legislature, the Courts and the Development of Copyright Law in Singapore: Twenty-Five Years On” (2012) 24 SAcLJ 867, which traces the development of and the many amendments to our copyright legislation since it was first enacted), it is crucial that strict measures are enforced so as to send a strong deterrent message to the public lest these efforts be undermined.

[20] That deterrence is the central consideration for copyright and trade mark infringement offences is also highlighted by the authors of Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts vol 2 (LexisNexis, 3rd Ed, 2013) (“Sentencing Practice”) at pp 1427 and 1442 respectively. Likewise, this has been recognised in numerous cases (see, for instance, PP v Md Hapiz bin Tahir [2007] SGDC 40 at [11]–[14]; PP v Koh Eng Kian [2007] SGDC 166 at [9]–[10] and [14]; and PP v Kwan Eddy Shu Kin [2005] SGDC 163 (“Kwan Eddy”) at [15]). …

[emphasis added]

[27] As mentioned, there was no dispute that the sentencing framework in Goik applied in respect of Mdm Tan’s sentence. I thus applied the framework in determining the appropriate sentence for Mdm Tan.

[28] First, I considered Mdm Tan’s level of involvement in the entire operation and agreed with the Prosecution that she had moderate involvement considering the following:

(a) Mdm Tan had been the director, secretary and shareholder (holding 90,000 shares) of the Company since its incorporation in 2019 (SOF at [3] and [42(b)]);

(b) She hired several employees to operate the Stores and was identified by one of them as the Company’s boss (SOF at [42(c)]); and

(c) Mdm Tan sourced for and procured the infringing items and was responsible for exposing them for sale at the Stores (SOF at [42(d)]).

[29] As highlighted (at [21]) above, the Defence seemed to have misunderstood and consequently misapplied the first step of the Goik framework. At the first step, what is to be considered is the offender’s level of involvement in the operation per se and not his/her culpability which encompasses a whole host of factors to be considered at the next step of the Goik framework (see Goik at [38] and [39]; and Tan Wei at [12] and [14]). When questioned on his justification for classifying Mdm Tan’s level of involvement as low, Defence Counsel replied that Mdm Tan had taken a backseat at work to focus on family commitments and left the operational aspects to the staff although she did make the decisions ultimately. He added that Mdm Tan did not devote as much time as before in terms of reviewing the stocks.

[30] In response, the Prosecution pointed out that Mdm Tan had admitted to the above facts in the SOF (see [28] above) without any qualification. Defence Counsel then confirmed that the Defence was not disputing the facts contained in the SOF and “not saying someone else came into the story”. He clarified that he merely meant that Mdm Tan had “spent less of her time on her business” and “did not devote all of the time that she did before”.

[31] Even after considering what Defence Counsel raised in his oral submissions, the inexorable conclusion was that Mdm Tan’s level of involvement was moderate. She was the one who called the shots in the business and could not be said to be “merely an employee” who would fall in the low involvement category (see [12(a)] of Tan Wei). The fact that she devoted less time on the business and more time on her family did not detract from this. Hence, the starting point sentence was between six and seven months’ imprisonment per charge ([38] of Goik; reproduced at [13] of Tan Wei).

[32] Next, I considered the following relevant factors (see Tan Wei at [14]; and Goik at [39]):

(a) Size of the offender’s business: There were three physical stores and two of them, viz, the Bukit Panjang and Tai Seng stores, were permanent while the Bugis Store was a retail makeshift stall. Two of the Stores, ie, the Bukit Panjang and Bugis stores, were located in shopping malls while the Tai Seng Store was located in a mixed-use development. The Defence’s argument that only about 10% of the shop space was allocated to sale of the infringing items was beside the point as the focus here was on the number and permanence of the shops and not the number of infringing items which would be separately considered.

(b) Number of employees in the offender’s business: While the exact number of employees was not stated in the SOF, the SOF did state that there were several employees hired by Mdm Tan to man the three stores.

(c) Number of infringing articles involved: The total number of items seized was 2,034 of which 1,314 infringing items were subject matters of the proceeded charges. The Defence submitted that a large proportion of the infringing items were part of old stock from previous purchases that were undetected due partly to the Company’s rudimentary inventory and stocking system. This submission did not assist Mdm Tan as she bore responsibility for ensuring that the Stores did not possess any infringing item for trade (whether from old or existing stock) as the director and person in charge of the Company’s operations.

(d) Nature and value of the infringing articles: The infringing items were relatively low-value household items such as masks, mousepads, plastic bags, hooks, pouches, etc priced between $1 and $31.40. The value of the infringing items in each of the proceeded charges is reflected in the table below:

Charge no.

$2.50

[35]

$5

[15]

$10

[38]

$13.80

[27]

$18.60

[12]

$19.50

[18]

$107.50

[31]

$140

[31]

$472

[22(b)]

$538.20

[22(c)]

$647.70

[22(a)]

$666.90

[22(a)]

$744.30

[22(c)]

$820.50

[22(b)]

The total value of the infringing items in the proceeded charges is $4,206.50 and the total value for all charges including those taken into consideration is $6,604. The low value of the infringing items was acknowledged by the Prosecution and factored into their sentencing position.

(e) Duration of the infringement: The offences were committed over a sustained period of at least nine months from 22 April 2023 to 26 January 2024. In addition, the infringing items continued to be displayed for sale at the Stores despite the various raids and sample purchases. As regards the Defence’s submission that no new stock was brought into the Stores and the infringing items seized in subsequent raids and purchases were leftover stock undiscovered during the earlier raids, the same point made above (at (c)) applied. The onus was on Mdm Tan to rid the Stores of infringing items, especially after the various raids. It was no answer to say that the items “inadvertently escaped” the checks.

(f) Whether compensation was made to the affected TM owners: No restitution was made by Mdm Tan or the Company.

(g) Antecedents: As set out at [7] above, Mdm Tan was in June 2013 convicted of 28 similar charges under s 49(c) of the 2005 TMA read with s 109 of the PC and five relevant charges under s 136(2)(a) of the CA read with s 109 of the PC. She was sentenced to a global term of 20 months’ imprisonment. In respect of her 2005 TMA charges, Mdm Tan was sentenced to between one day’s and four months’ imprisonment with two of the four-month sentences ordered to run consecutively. While Mdm Tan’s antecedents were rather dated, they showed her recalcitrance especially given the Defence’s submission that some of the infringing items were from past stock dating back to her 2013 offences. This meant that during the decade or so between her prior conviction and the present set of offences, Mdm Tan continued to commit similar TMA offences by having in possession for the purpose of trade infringing items. Even after being convicted of and sentenced to a lengthy custodial sentence for similar TMA offences, Mdm Tan failed to learn from her past mistake. She could have disposed the past batches of contaminated stock or installed a more robust inventory system but did neither. Instead, from what the Defence submitted, Mdm Tan took a rather lackadaisical attitude at work.

(h) Number of TIC charges: There were 61 similar TIC charges against Mdm Tan under s 49(b) and (c) read with s 107(4) of the TMA. The presence of similar TIC charges would generally result in an increase in the sentence to be imposed.

[33] Having considered the above factors in totality, I was satisfied that the imprisonment terms proposed by the Prosecution for the proceeded charges were appropriate. Hence, I sentenced Mdm Tan as follows:

(a) for the charges involving infringing items of less than $50 (MSC-901240-2024, MSC-900411-2024, MSC-901245-2024, MSC-900454-2024, MSC-900390-2024 and MSC-900430-2024), one month’s imprisonment;

(b) for the remaining charges involving infringing items of less than $200 (MSC-900469-2024 and MSC-900460-2024), two months’ imprisonment;

(c) for the remaining charges involving infringing items of less than $800 (MSC-900419-2024, MSC-900438-2024, MSC-900398-2024, MSC-900400-2024 and MSC-900437-2024), four months’ imprisonment; and

(d) for the remaining charge involving infringing items of less than $1,000 (MSC-900418-2024), five months’ imprisonment.

[34] While the sentences above fell below the starting point sentence of between six and seven months’ imprisonment, I considered them to be appropriate in view of the relatively low value of the infringing items per charge and Mdm Tan’s early plea of guilt. As Mdm Tan had indicated her intention to plead guilty within Stage 1 of the Sentencing Advisory Panel’s Guidelines on Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas, I accorded her the maximum 30% reduction in sentence.

[35] Pursuant to s 307(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010, as Mdm Tan had been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for at least three distinct offences, the court must order the sentences for at least two of the offences to run consecutively. Both the Prosecution and the Defence submitted that three of the sentences should run consecutively. Given the number of proceeded charges against Mdm Tan (ie, 14), I agreed with parties that three of the sentences should run consecutively.

[36] However, instead of running the sentence for MSC-900419-2024 (four months’ imprisonment) consecutively with the sentences for MSC-900418-2024 (five months’ imprisonment) and MSC-901240-2024 (one month’s imprisonment) as proposed by the Prosecution, I ran the sentence for MSC-900460-2024 (two months’ imprisonment) consecutively with the latter two sentences. I was of the view that the resultant global sentence, viz, eight months’ imprisonment, was commensurate with Mdm Tan’s overall criminality.

[37] This sentence was also in line with the sentencing precedents discussed by parties. It is lower than all but one of the precedents, viz, PP v Li Na [2015] SGDC 260 (“Li Na”) where a global sentence of six months and two weeks’ imprisonment was imposed. The higher sentence imposed in the present case as compared to Li Na was justified as the offender in Li Na operated from a single shop unit with two sales assistants whereas Mdm Tan operated three stores with several employees. The offending period in Li Na was also much shorter, only a third of the duration in the present case (see [69] of Li Na). While the offender in Li Na was traced for s 49(c) TMA offences much closer in time to her offences (approximately two to three years prior), she received fines for her prior offences ($6,800 for her 2011 conviction and $5,250 for her 2012 conviction) (see [4] of Li Na) whereas Mdm Tan reoffended despite her substantial custodial sentence in 2013.

[38] Mdm Tan’s overall criminality was lower than that of the offenders in the other precedents who received nine months’ imprisonment, viz, Goik, Tan Wei and Nat Gifts, and the offender in PP v Goh Chor Guan [2010] SGDC 336 (“Goh”) who received 13 months’ imprisonment:

(a) Level of involvement: The offender in Goh would have been classified as having a moderate level of involvement under the Goik framework (Goik at [34]) while the offender in Tan Wei was found to have low to low end of moderate level of involvement (Tan Wei at [22] and [23]). Both the offenders in Goik and Nat Gifts were found to have moderate to high level of involvement (Goik at [40] and Nat Gifts at [38]). In Goh and Tan Wei, the offenders personally went to China to source for the counterfeit goods (Goh at [9] and Tan Wei at [22]). The offender in Goik had a driver and four assistants and in Nat Gifts, there were five retail outlets (Goik at [40] and Nat Gifts at [42]).

(b) Financial figures: No meaningful comparison can be made as the profit margin and amount of profits in the present case were not provided.

(c) Duration of the infringement: Apart from Nat Gifts, the period of offending in all the cases were longer: close to two years in Goh (see Goh at [8] and [9]), about two years in Goik (Goik at [4] to [6]), about one year in Tan Wei (Tan Wei at [25]) and about seven months in Nat Gifts (Nat Gifts at [42]).

(d) Number of infringing articles involved: The present case has the lowest number of infringing items amongst the four precedent cases. The total number of infringing items in the present case was 2,034 across all charges while that in the four precedent cases ranged from 4,073 to 16,550.

(e) Nature and value of infringing articles: The items in the present case were mostly low value household items whereas the items in the precedent cases included luxury goods, apparel, bags and bedding products.

(f) Whether compensation was made to the affected TM owners: Apart from Goik where the offender made compensation in the sum of $100,000 (Goik at [41]), no restitution was made in the other cases, including the present one.

(g) Antecedents: The offenders in all four precedent cases were not traced for similar offences unlike Mdm Tan who was traced for multiple intellectual property offences for which she was sentenced to a substantial custodial term.

[39] Taking all the above factors into account, I was satisfied that a slightly lower sentence than the nine months’ imprisonment imposed in Goik, Tan Wei and Nat Gifts was appropriate.

[40] In the final analysis, I considered the totality principle and was of the view that the eight-month custodial sentence was neither crushing nor out of keeping with Mdm Tan’s past record and future prospects (Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v PP [2014] 2 SLR 998 at [57]). It bears highlighting that Mdm Tan’s offences were punishable with up to five years’ imprisonment and she was previously sentenced to a global custodial term of 20 months for intellectual property offences, of which eight months were for the 2005 TMA offences. The eight-month sentence was also not substantially above the normal level of sentences for the offence given that the starting point sentence was between six and seven months’ imprisonment.

[41] Parties were not far apart in their sentencing positions for the Company. The Prosecution sought a fine of $14,000 while the Defence submitted for a fine of $13,000. I had imposed the sentence submitted for by the Defence, ie, a fine of $13,000 after applying a multiplier of two times the total value of infringing items ($6,604). This was the multiplier applied in Nat Gifts (see Nat Gifts at [47] and [48]) and parties agreed that this was the appropriate sentencing approach. I saw no reason to depart from this approach and applied it accordingly.

[42] In particular, I imposed a fine of $1,300 for each of the charges involving infringing items of higher value (MSC-900479-2024, MSC-900481-2024, MSC-900499-2024, MSC-900500-2024, MSC-900518-2024, MSC-900519-2024) and a fine of $650 for each of the charges involving infringing items of lower value (MSC-900471-2024, MSC-900492-2024, MSC-900511-2024, MSC-900535-2024, MSC-900541-2024, MSC-900550-2024, MSC-901233-2024 and MSC-901238-2024) to arrive at the global fine of $13,000. The fine imposed was well within the statutory cap of $100,000 and was proportionate to the Company’s overall offending.

[43] The sentences imposed on the Offenders were calibrated to reflect the nature and scale of the infringements, Mdm Tan’s role in the operation, and the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors. In respect of the Company, I note that the global fine of $13,000 was the very figure submitted for by the Defence. As for Mdm Tan, the global sentence of eight months’ imprisonment was derived after applying the Goik framework and relevant sentencing principles and was in line with the sentences imposed in precedent cases. Mdm Tan’s prior conviction in 2013 for similar intellectual property offences — for which she received a substantial custodial sentence of 20 months — demonstrated that the earlier sentence had not achieved its intended deterrent effect. That she went on to commit similar offences across three retail outlets over a sustained period underscored the need for a sentence that adequately addressed her recalcitrance. The protection of intellectual property rights is a matter of significant public interest, and those who persist in undermining the TM regime for commercial gain must expect to face appropriately severe consequences.

for the Public Prosecutor;

for the Offender.