The POFMA correction order issued against Nicholas Tan, the founder of Aupen Projects, marks a key turning point. It sits at the crossroads of intellectual property law, rules against false information, and online messaging.

POFMA stands for Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, a Singapore law from 2019 that lets authorities order fixes for misleading online content. In this case, Tan shared posts claiming Aupen invented a tech called “Alpha Aperture.”

But the posts hid that the idea came from a patented design by Lumiere Innovations. The government stepped in, ruled the claims false, and forced Tan to add correction notices to the posts. This action sets new examples for the field. It shows how IP fights might play out in the future.

Courts and companies now face clearer paths to tackle false claims about inventions online. For instance, if a startup boasts about a unique product that copies someone else’s work, this order signals that quick government fixes could follow, much like in past cases where brands clashed over trademarks on social media.

Beyond disputes, it shapes how agencies like Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office work. These bodies may ramp up checks on public statements tied to patents, blending their roles with misinformation watchdogs.

This shift helps protect true creators from copycats who use hype to gain an edge. Businesses, too, must rethink their steps in a web of laws and public views. They often blend legal battles with PR moves, like posting updates to build buzz.

Yet this order warns that such mixes can backfire if facts get twisted. Tan’s firm, for one, saw its online image hit hard after the notices appeared, raising questions on how leaders balance bold claims with proof. Overall, the ruling pushes firms to align strategies more carefully, ensuring claims hold up under scrutiny. It guides everyone from small inventors to big players on handling IP in open digital spaces.

Immediate IP Law Implications

1. Institutional Neutrality in IP Administration

The IPOS Standard

The case crystallizes the principle that intellectual property offices must maintain strict neutrality in trademark disputes. IPOS’s clarified position—that it provides general information while encouraging independent legal advice—establishes a clear boundary between administrative guidance and legal counsel.

Legal Precedent: This creates a formal expectation that IP offices will not:

Advise parties on litigation strategy
Predict outcomes of trademark disputes
Recommend whether to pursue or abandon claims
Show favoritism based on the nationality of applicants

International Benchmarking

Singapore’s approach aligns with best practices from major IP jurisdictions like the USPTO, EPO, and UKIPO, which maintain similar neutrality standards. However, the POFMA enforcement adds a unique dimension—false claims about institutional bias now carry explicit legal consequences.

2. The Boundaries of IP Strategy Communications

Public Relations vs. Legal Strategy

The Aupen case demonstrates the risks of conflating public relations campaigns with legal strategy in IP disputes. Tan’s approach of using social media to pressure institutional actors represents a cautionary tale about the limits of public advocacy in legal matters.

Strategic Implications:

Businesses must distinguish between legitimate public advocacy and false statements about legal processes
IP practitioners will need to advise clients more carefully about social media communications during disputes
The case establishes that false claims about IP office procedures constitute legally actionable misinformation

The “David vs. Goliath” Narrative

While small businesses facing large corporations naturally generate sympathy, the case establishes that emotional narratives cannot be built on factual falsehoods about institutional processes.

3. Evidence Standards in IP Misinformation

Burden of Proof

The POFMA order required the government to provide detailed rebuttals to each false claim, establishing high evidentiary standards for IP-related misinformation cases:

Specific Communications: The government had to clarify exactly what IPOS did and did not say during meetings with Tan
Procedural Documentation: Standard practices and protocols were made explicit in the public record
Timeline Accuracy: The sequence of events and communications was precisely documented

Documentation Requirements

This case will likely influence how IP offices document their interactions with applicants and rights holders, ensuring clear records that can counter false claims about institutional bias or procedural irregularities.

Broader IP Ecosystem Implications

1. Trademark Opposition Dynamics

Strategic Communications

The case occurs within the context of Target’s potential opposition to Aupen’s US trademark application. This timing suggests several implications:

Pre-Opposition Strategy: Businesses may increasingly view public relations as part of trademark opposition strategy, but the POFMA case establishes clear limits on false statements about regulatory processes.

International Coordination: The case highlights how trademark disputes in one jurisdiction (US) can influence communications strategies in another (Singapore), creating complex multi-jurisdictional considerations.

Opposition Proceedings Integrity

The case reinforces that trademark opposition proceedings must be conducted within legal frameworks rather than through public pressure campaigns based on false institutional claims.

2. Small Business vs. Multinational Dynamics

Systemic Bias Claims

Tan’s allegations about institutional favoritism toward foreign businesses touch on a sensitive area in international IP law. The POFMA response establishes several principles:

Merit-Based Evaluation: IP systems must be perceived as evaluating applications and disputes based on legal merit rather than applicant characteristics.

Transparency Requirements: IP offices may need to provide clearer public information about how they ensure equal treatment regardless of applicant nationality or size.

Documentation Standards: The need to counter false bias claims may drive more rigorous documentation of institutional decision-making processes.

3. Cross-Border IP Strategy

Jurisdictional Considerations

The case demonstrates how IP strategy must account for different legal frameworks across jurisdictions:

Misinformation Laws: Businesses operating internationally must understand how different countries address false statements about government institutions.

Reputational Management: IP disputes increasingly occur in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, requiring coordinated but jurisdiction-specific communication strategies.

Regulatory Relationship Management: The importance of maintaining credible relationships with IP offices across multiple jurisdictions.

Procedural and Administrative Implications

1. IP Office Operations

Enhanced Documentation

IP offices may need to implement more rigorous documentation standards for applicant interactions to defend against false bias claims:

Meeting Records: Detailed documentation of guidance provided during consultations
Communication Logs: Clear records of what advice was and was not given
Process Transparency: More explicit public information about standard procedures and limitations

Staff Training

IP office personnel will likely require enhanced training on:

Maintaining appropriate boundaries in applicant consultations
Documenting interactions to prevent mischaracterization
Recognizing when applicants may be seeking strategic advantage through public pressure

2. Legal Practice Standards

Client Counseling

IP practitioners must now advise clients about:

The legal risks of making false statements about IP office procedures
The distinction between legitimate advocacy and prohibited misinformation
The potential for misinformation laws to impact IP dispute strategy

Professional Responsibility

The case raises questions about attorney responsibilities when clients engage in public communications that may contain false statements about legal processes or institutions.

3. Due Process Considerations

Procedural Safeguards

The case establishes that robust procedural safeguards exist to counter false claims about IP administration:

Detailed government responses with specific evidence
Public correction mechanisms through official channels
Clear documentation of actual institutional positions and practices

Long-Term Structural Implications

1. IP System Confidence

Public Trust Mechanisms

The swift POFMA response demonstrates institutional mechanisms for maintaining public confidence in IP systems. This creates several precedents:

Rapid Response: False claims about institutional bias require immediate, detailed rebuttals to prevent erosion of system confidence.

Transparency Balance: IP offices must balance confidentiality requirements with the need to counter false public claims.

International Reputation: How local misinformation cases are handled affects international perceptions of IP system integrity.

2. Digital Age IP Practice

Social Media Integration

The case establishes that IP practice in the digital age must account for:

The speed at which false narratives can spread through social media
The intersection between legal strategy and digital communications
The need for rapid institutional response mechanisms

Evidence Standards

Digital communications create new evidentiary challenges and opportunities:

Screenshot documentation of false claims
Digital correction mechanisms through platform-specific tools
The ephemeral nature of some social media content complicates evidence preservation

3. International Harmonization

Global Standards

The case may influence international discussions about:

Minimum standards for IP office neutrality and documentation
Cross-border mechanisms for addressing false claims about institutional bias
Harmonization of approaches to IP-related misinformation

Best Practices Development

International IP organizations may develop best practices based on this case regarding:

Institutional communication standards
Documentation requirements for applicant interactions
Response protocols for false bias allegations

Recommendations and Future Considerations

For IP Offices

Enhanced Documentation Protocols: Implement comprehensive documentation standards for all applicant interactions
Clear Communication Guidelines: Develop explicit guidelines about what guidance can and cannot be provided
Rapid Response Capabilities: Establish mechanisms for quickly countering false claims about institutional procedures
Transparency Initiatives: Provide clearer public information about standard processes and neutrality safeguards

For Legal Practitioners

Client Education: Ensure clients understand the legal risks of false statements about IP office procedures
Communication Strategy: Develop IP dispute strategies that clearly separate legal advocacy from public relations
Documentation Practices: Maintain detailed records of all institutional interactions and guidance received
Cross-Jurisdictional Awareness: Understand how misinformation laws in different jurisdictions may impact IP strategy

For Businesses

Compliance Programs: Develop internal guidelines for public communications during IP disputes
Professional Consultation: Ensure legal review of all public statements about institutional processes
Strategy Integration: Coordinate legal strategy with public relations to avoid conflicting or false narratives
Risk Assessment: Evaluate reputational and legal risks of aggressive public advocacy strategies

Conclusion

The Aupen POFMA case represents a fundamental shift in how intellectual property law intersects with digital communications and misinformation regulation. By establishing clear consequences for false statements about IP office procedures, the case creates new parameters for how IP disputes are conducted in the digital age.

The implications extend far beyond this individual case, potentially influencing IP office operations, legal practice standards, and business strategy across jurisdictions. As IP systems worldwide grapple with similar challenges of maintaining institutional credibility in an era of rapid digital communication, the Singapore approach offers both a model and a warning about the evolving landscape of IP law and practice.

The case ultimately reinforces that while robust public debate about IP policy is essential, such discourse must be grounded in factual accuracy rather than strategic misinformation. This balance between legitimate advocacy and institutional protection will likely define much of the future development of IP law in the digital age.

Case Overview

Defendant: Ng Hoe Seng, operating Instagram accounts “emcase_sg” and “emcrafts_sg” Plaintiff: Louis Vuitton Malletier (LVM) Outcome: $200,000 damages awarded to Louis Vuitton

The Infringement

Ng sold fake Louis Vuitton items including phone cases, passport covers, card holders, and purses at significantly reduced prices (e.g., fake passport covers for $159 vs. authentic ones at $560-$945). The counterfeits were marketed as genuine products.

Louis Vuitton’s Response

After discovering the infringements in July 2022, LVM conducted sting operations, making test purchases worth $2,100. When they issued a cease-and-desist letter in March 2023, Ng simply moved to a new Instagram account and continued selling.

Court Proceedings

Ng completely ignored the legal proceedings and didn’t appear in court. LVM initially sought $2.9 million in damages but Justice Dedar Singh Gill deemed this “grossly excessive.”

Key Judicial Findings

Justice Gill criticized Ng’s deceptive tactics, including:

Using fake “influencers” to promote products
Claiming products were “upcycled” from real Louis Vuitton goods (which the judge called “a lie upon a lie”)
Making his Instagram account private while still allowing followers to view it

Damages Assessment

The judge limited the award to $200,000, noting that:

Ng was a sole proprietor, not a large-scale manufacturer
Knock-offs typically don’t substitute for genuine luxury goods
The financial impact on Louis Vuitton was questionable

Enforcement Challenges

The judge warned about the “hydra-like” nature of online infringement, where sellers can easily create new accounts when one is shut down. Indeed, as of July 3, 2025, Ng’s business has ceased registration and his original accounts have vanished, though a similarly named account remains active. This raises questions about whether Louis Vuitton will actually recover the $200,000 awarded.

This case demonstrates both the challenges luxury brands face in combating online counterfeiting and the courts’ willingness to impose significant damages, even against small-scale operators who refuse to participate in legal proceedings.

In-Depth Analysis: Louis Vuitton v. Ng Hoe Seng – A Comprehensive Legal Victory Against Online Counterfeiting

Executive Summary

The High Court of Singapore’s ruling in Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Ng Hoe Seng represents a landmark case in the evolving landscape of intellectual property enforcement against digital-age counterfeiting. This comprehensive analysis examines the multifaceted legal, commercial, and enforcement dimensions of a case that awarded $200,000 in damages to the French luxury house while exposing the systemic challenges of combating online trademark infringement.

Background and Context

The Defendant’s Business Model

Ng Hoe Seng operated what can be characterized as a sophisticated digital counterfeiting enterprise disguised as a legitimate e-commerce operation. His business model represented a new generation of intellectual property infringement that leverages social media platforms’ accessibility and reach while exploiting enforcement gaps in digital commerce.

The defendant’s operations spanned two Instagram accounts – “emcase_sg” and “emcrafts_sg” – suggesting a deliberate strategy of platform diversification to mitigate enforcement risks. This approach reflects the “hydra-like” nature of online infringement that Justice Gill would later warn against in his judgment. The product range was strategically focused on Louis Vuitton’s most recognizable and commercially valuable items: phone cases, passport covers, card holders, and purses – all products that carry high brand recognition value while being relatively simple to counterfeit.

Pricing Strategy and Market Positioning

The defendant’s pricing strategy reveals sophisticated market understanding. By pricing fake passport covers at $159 compared to authentic items at $560-$945, Ng positioned his products in what economists call the “accessible luxury” segment. This pricing wasn’t randomly chosen – it was low enough to attract price-sensitive consumers while high enough to maintain the perception of quality and authenticity.

This pricing strategy is particularly insidious because it creates a market segment that doesn’t directly compete with authentic Louis Vuitton products but rather creates a parallel market that trades on the brand’s reputation. The defendant essentially monetized Louis Vuitton’s brand equity without contributing to its development or maintenance.

Legal Framework and Trademark Infringement

Statutory Framework

The case operates within Singapore’s robust intellectual property legal framework, which provides both civil and criminal remedies for trademark infringement. The statutory cap of $100,000 per infringement that LVM initially sought to apply reflects Singapore’s serious approach to IP protection, though the court’s ultimate award demonstrates judicial discretion in applying these maximums.

Elements of Trademark Infringement

The case presented a textbook example of trademark infringement, satisfying all essential elements:

Use in Trade: Ng’s commercial sale of counterfeit goods clearly constituted use in the course of trade, not personal use or academic discussion.

Identical or Confusingly Similar Marks: The counterfeits bore identical Louis Vuitton trademarks, eliminating any defense based on similarity rather than identity.

Same or Similar Goods: The counterfeit items were identical in category to Louis Vuitton’s registered goods, creating direct infringement rather than requiring analysis of related goods.

Likelihood of Confusion: The defendant’s marketing explicitly represented the goods as authentic, creating actual confusion rather than merely potential confusion.

The Deception Analysis

Justice Gill’s analysis of the defendant’s deceptive practices reveals the sophisticated nature of modern counterfeiting operations. The judge identified several layers of deception:

Primary Deception: Marketing counterfeit goods as authentic Louis Vuitton products.

Secondary Deception: Using fake customer testimonials and “influencer” endorsements to create artificial social proof.

Tertiary Deception: Claiming products were “upcycled” from genuine Louis Vuitton materials, which the judge characterized as “a lie upon a lie.”

This layered deception strategy demonstrates how modern counterfeiters use digital marketing techniques to create elaborate false narratives around their products.