Swatch vs. Samsung: The $170 Million Trademark Battle Over Digital Watch Faces

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding in December 2023, dismissing Samsung's appeal . This makes the case a significant legal precedent for the liability of app store operators in Europe.

Downloads and Timeline

Between October 2015 and February 2019, the infringing apps were downloaded approximately 157,715 times in the UK and EU — close to the 160,000 figure reported in the media .

The Damages Argument: $170 Million vs. ~$300

The staggering difference between the two sides' figures is at the heart of the damages hearing.

• Swatch's argument: Damages should be calculated based on a hypothetical licensing fee — what Samsung would reasonably have paid to lawfully use the trademarks. Swatch argues this would be a substantial per-download royalty given the premium brand value of Omega, Breguet, Tissot, and Longines, leading to the $170 million claim .

• Samsung's contention: Samsung says its actual revenue share from the apps was only about $300 — an extraordinarily small sum given that most of the watch face apps were free or very low-priced, and Samsung's cut of any paid sales was minor. Samsung argues that awarding damages thousands of times higher than its actual profit would be disproportionate .

The Forthcoming Ruling and EU Coverage

A British judge is expected to rule on the damages quantum shortly . Because the UK proceedings involve EU registered trademarks (the UK was still part of the EU during most of the infringement period), Swatch is seeking damages covering the entire European Union, not just the UK . The ruling will therefore have cross-border implications for damages calculations across the EU market.

Parallel US Lawsuits

Swatch has also pursued parallel litigation in the United States against Samsung over similar trademark infringement allegations concerning digital watch faces, though the specific status and amounts sought in the US actions are not detailed in the available UK-focused reporting .

Broader Implications

This case is being closely watched because it clarifies that app store operators who actively review and curate third-party content can be held directly liable for trademark infringement. The damages ruling will set a benchmark for how intellectual property is valued in the digital marketplace — whether based on a hypothetical licensing fee for the brand, or on the actual revenue generated by the platform.

The outcome could reshape the legal obligations of app store providers across Europe and serve as a warning for technology platforms: curating content means accepting responsibility for it.