Serious BT , 18 Dec 2025 : Louis Vuitton Sues ValueMax Retail Pte Ltd , a Unit of SGX-Listed ValueMax Group Over Alleged Trademark Infringement .

[Tragedeigh]

Nothing is airtight, not even a virgin as the hymen is perforated.

@Tragedeigh agree?

One day, the siaolang finds out where you live you will get feces thrown on your main gate. Siaolang is unhinged one hor. Keep disturbing her she will have no limit in revenge attack.

 

[Dreamliner787]

One day, the siaolang finds out where you live you will get feces thrown on your main gate. Siaolang is unhinged one hor. Keep disturbing her she will have no limit in revenge attack.

I don't know what you're talking.

I am referring only to a biological phenomenon, not to any specific individual.

I sought your agreement because you claimed to have slept with a virgin. For that reason, you cannot propagate the myth that virgins do not exist, since you have experienced one yourself.

 

[shiokalingam]

Passing off is a tort of strict liability, meaning a defendant can be found liable for misrepresentation even if it was unintentional or an innocent mistake. In other words, intention is not a necessary element to establish the offence (tort) of passing off.

LV can collect money liao.

Summary Hearing Over but no news update ,

 

[shiokalingam]

View attachment 235293​

LV applies for summary judgement against ValueMax in alleged trademark infringement lawsuit​

Source: Business Times
Article Date: 31 Dec 2025
Author: Tay Peck Gek

ValueMax Retail has denied infringing LV’s trademarks or passing off, pointing out in its defence that the items under dispute had symbols that were neither identical nor similar to any of the LV marks.

Global luxury and fashion-goods company Louis Vuitton has applied for summary judgement for its lawsuit against a wholly owned subsidiary of mainboard-listed ValueMax Group over alleged trademark infringement and passing off.

Louis Vuitton, known popularly as LV, lodged a lawsuit in mid-September against ValueMax Retail, alleging that it was selling a gold charm, and offering for sale a pair of gold earrings that infringed its trademarks.

ValueMax Retail denied infringing LV’s trademarks or passing off, pointing out in its defence filed in October that the items under dispute had symbols that were neither identical nor similar to any of LV’s marks.

However, LV has proceeded to seek summary judgement from the Singapore High Court, which is set to be heard on Jan 6. The application means it is claiming that ValueMax Retail plainly has no defence to its claim, and is asking the court to decide in its favour without going through a trial.

A claimant must first show that it has a prima facie case – meaning, on first impression – for summary judgment for such an application. If it fails to do that, its application will be dismissed.

However, once it shows that it has a prima facie case, the burden is then shifted to the defendant, who will have to establish that there is a fair or reasonable probability that there is a triable issue, a real defence, or that for some other reason there ought to be a trial.

If the defendant is able to do that, it will be allowed to continue to defend the action. Conversely, summary judgement will be awarded to the claimant.

A ValueMax Group spokesperson told The Business Times on Tuesday (Dec 30) that the defendant will be opposing LV’s summary judgement application.


LV’s allegations

LV has four trademarks registered in Singapore: the LV monogram and three graphic motifs. It said its brand is one of the world’s most valuable, and is also one of the most counterfeited luxury brands in the world. There is therefore a need to deter similar infringement, as its reputation and goodwill will be damaged by counterfeit goods.

Apart from alleging ValueMax Retail of infringing its trademarks, LV further alleged that ValueMax Retail had made misrepresentations to the public that the jewellery in question were LV goods, or that there was an economic association or relationship between the jewellery and LV.

This would not only create confusion for the consumer, but also damage LV’s interest and dilute the distinctive character of its trademarks, LV argued. It claimed that it has suffered or is likely to suffer loss and damage.

The French behemoth said it is entitled to statutory damages under the Trademarks Act, which are up to S$100,000 for each type of goods or service in relation to which the trademark has been infringed, and up to S$1 million in total unless the claimant proves that its actual loss from such infringement exceeds S$1 million.

It is seeking an inquiry into the damages, an account of profits made by ValueMax Retail from the sale of the disputed items, or statutory damages.

It is also applying for an injunction to restrain ValueMax Retail from infringing the LV trademarks, passing off or attempting to pass off the defendant’s goods as LV’s and misrepresenting as having an economic association or relationship with the French company.

It is seeking an order for the delivery and forfeiture of all goods, materials or articles with ValueMax Retail in relation to the disputed items.

The other order it is seeking is for the full disclosure by ValueMax Retail of all of its trademark infringements and passing off.


ValueMax Retail denies misrepresentation

In its defence, ValueMax Retail said it is a dealer in second-hand jewellery made of gold and precious stones, as well as branded watches and branded bags, and that it buys these from various parties, including other second-hand dealers, pawnshops and consumers.

The store accused of selling the disputed items is a pawnshop with sales counters, it said.

It claimed that it made no representations as to the origin of the items in dispute, nor any alleged economic association or relationship between the jewellery and LV.

ValueMax Retail rejected the claim that it is in direct competition with LV, as the nature of its business is different from that of the French group.

In a regulatory filing made to the Singapore Exchange on Dec 18, the mainboard-listed ValueMax Group said its subsidiary will “vigorously and robustly defend these claims brought forward by LV at every appropriate legal stage, and will take all necessary action to defend its reputation”.

It also said the gold charm and gold earrings were unredeemed pawned items procured through separate sources by the group.



Source: The Business Times

me think the HC asked them
to Trial it out :

 

[Dreamliner787]

me think the HC asked them
to Trial it out :



View attachment 235826

If my memory serves me right, only people like Dr Chee or Roy Ngern would tio Summary Judgment and then game over.

 

[Narong Wongwan]

Next time Valuemax should just melt down all these unredeemed fake items for the gold.
Save a lot of hassle.

 

[shiokalingam]

Heard in some asia countries :


In Asia, where high-purity gold (22k–24k) is a common investment, scammers typically use materials that mimic the density or appearance of gold.

1. Tungsten (The "Density Match")​

Tungsten is the most common material used for high-end "super fakes."

• Why: Its density is almost identical to gold. Gold has a density of approximately 19.3\text{ g/cm}^3, while tungsten is roughly 19.25\text{ g/cm}^3.

• How: Because the weight-to-volume ratio is so close, a gold-plated tungsten bar or thick chain will pass a basic weight check and even some water displacement (Archimedes) tests.
• The Catch: Tungsten is extremely brittle and cannot be "melted into" gold easily because its melting point is much higher (over 3,000°C). Instead, it is usually used as a core hidden inside a gold shell.

2. Iridium and Ruthenium​

These are "platinum group" metals that some unethical refiners mix directly into the melt.

• Why: They are very dense and, until recently, were significantly cheaper than gold.
• How: These metals don't always fully alloy with gold; they can remain as tiny, heavy grains within the metal. This adds weight without significantly altering the color of high-karat gold (like 22k).
• Detection: These often require professional XRF (X-ray fluorescence) scanning to detect.

3. Copper, Silver, and Zinc (The "Karat" Trick)​

While these are standard for making 18k or 14k gold, fraud occurs when a jeweler marks a piece as 24k (Pure) but has actually melted in significant amounts of these cheaper metals.

• Copper: Adds a reddish tint (Rose Gold).
• Silver: Adds a pale/greenish tint.
• The Fraud: By adding just 5–10% of these metals, the jeweler increases the volume and weight of the "gold" while still trying to pass it off as "999" pure gold to an untrained eye.

How to Protect Yourself​

If you are buying gold in Asia (specifically in hubs like Bangkok, Hong Kong, or Mumbai), always look for:

• The Hallmark: Look for official government or purity stamps (e.g., "999" for 24k, "916" for 22k).

• The "Ping" Test: Pure gold has a distinct, dull thud when dropped; fake or tungsten-filled items often "ring" like a bell.

• XRF Testing: Many reputable shops now have X-ray machines that can tell you the exact elemental breakdown of the piece without damaging it.

It is important to distinguishing between legitimate alloying (which creates 14k or 18k gold) and fraudulent tampering.


In the jewelry industry, adding heavy or cheap materials to "pad" the weight of a gold item is a serious form of fraud.

Note: Real jewelry-grade gold is an investment. If a deal seems "too good" based on the current market spot price, there is almost certainly a heavy non-gold metal hidden inside.

Method	Description	Difficulty to Detect
Core Filling	A hollow gold bangle or chain is filled with lead or wax.	Easy (Acid/Drill test)
Heavy Plating	Using a thick layer of gold over a brass or tungsten base.	Medium (Deep Scratch)
Soldering Fraud	Using an excessive amount of low-karat solder to join links, which adds weight.	Hard (Requires Assay)