Time may be digital, but the bill that Swatch presents to Samsung it's definitely real: about 170 million dollars. According to Financial Times, the Swiss group is asking for this sum before the High Court in London for a series of digital dials intended for Samsung smartwatches, accused of turning Galaxy devices into wrist imitations of some of the most famous brands in Swiss watchmaking.
At the heart of the case are 26 “watch faces”, downloadable graphics to customize smartwatches. For Swatch, however, these were not simple dials inspired by the world of watches, but copies capable of recalling models and prestigious brands of the group such as Omega, Breguet, Longines, Tissot and Swatch. Samsung's liability has already been recognized in previous English judgments. Now the the match has moved on to the figureHow much is the unauthorized use of a historic trademark's prestige worth in court?
Swatch's demand and the weight of Swiss brands
The cause is about 26 digital watch faces available for download on Samsung smartwatches. For Swatch, those apps were not just graphics inspired by the world of watchmaking, but Reproductions capable of unduly exploiting the prestige built up by its brands over time. According to the Bienne group, the disputed dials would have been downloaded approximately 160.000 times in the UK and the European UnionSwatch considers them “low-cost copies” of exclusive models and claims that the intellectual property infringement occurred between October 2015 and February 2019.
Behind the economic request there is a question of industrial identitySwatch defends the idea that a Swiss watch brand cannot be transformed into a mass-market digital accessory without compromising its value, exclusivity, and reputation. Sylvain DollaTissot CEO, Dolla, explained that the group does not license its brands to third parties, "let alone to other watch companies, let alone those that produce smartwatches." According to Dolla, allowing the use of high-end brands on "mass-market" digital watches would ultimately "kill" the value of Swiss timepieces.
Why Samsung is contesting the large compensation
Samsung strongly rejects the requested amountHis lawyers have defined the Swatch's demand was “over the top” and “not in accordance with reality”, claiming that the Swiss group had not suffered any concrete damage and that Samsung had not gained any significant advantage from the affair.
The defense of the South Korean giant insists on some key points. The apps would have been made by third-party developers, would not have been directly promoted by Samsung and would have been removed once the disputes emerged. Furthermore, almost all of the contested applications would have been free. For Samsung's lawyers, the request is considered "exorbitant" and based on a "fundamentally flawed" calculation method and not proportionate to the alleged damage. According to the defense's reconstruction, the total revenue generated by downloads in the disputed period would have been just over $1.000, with only about $300 going to Samsung and the rest going to developers.
This is where the gap between the two positions becomes more apparent. For Swatch, the compensation does not coincide with the immediate revenue from the apps, but with the unauthorized use of highly prestigious brands. For Samsung, however, the request reflects neither the company's actual role in the distribution of the watch faces nor the true economic impact of the incident.
From third-party apps to store liability
The controversy stems from an increasingly central issue in the digital economy: how liable can a platform be for content created by third parties but distributed through its own ecosystem. In 2022, The High Court in London had already ruled in favor of Swatch, ruling that some “watch faces” available on the Galaxy App Store infringed the Swiss group's trademarks. The court had held Samsung responsible even though the dials had been developed by external companies.
At the end of 2023 also the The UK Court of Appeal upheld the decisionThe judges rejected Samsung's appeal and ruled that the fact that the apps had been created by third parties was not sufficient to exempt the company from liability. According to the court, Samsung had not merely played a passive, technical, or automatic role, but had sufficient control and knowledge to prevent it from relying on a simple "hosting" defense. Swatch hailed the decision as an important step forward for trademark protection in the digital age.
A battle that began in 2019 and has reached its final count
The dispute has distant roots. Already In 2019, Swatch initiated an action against Samsung in the United States, alleging that some smartwatch dials identically or nearly identically reproduced trademarks used on traditional watches from Longines, Omega, Swatch, and Tissot. In the complaint, Swatch argued that the copying could have no other purpose than to exploit the fame, reputation, and goodwill its brands have built over decades. Since then, the legal battle has broadened and consolidated, culminating in English decisions that have already recognized Samsung's liability.
The High Court must now decide the amount of compensation.. According to Financial TimesProceedings related to the case have also been initiated in the United States, currently awaiting the outcome of the London trial. Closing arguments are scheduled for Friday, with a ruling on the amount due at a later date.
Asked by the agency AWPSwatch Group has chosen not to comment on the ongoing proceedings. The case will now be decided by the London judges, who will be asked to determine the financial value of the unauthorized digital use of some of the most recognizable Swiss watchmaking brands.
