Swatch is seeking $170 million from Samsung due to allegations of copied watch faces.

      A court in London has already determined that 26 of Samsung's smartwatch faces violated Swatch trademarks. The two parties are now in a dispute over the financial implications. The conflict between the Swiss watch manufacturer and the global leader in smartphones has come down to a specific figure: $170 million. Swatch is requesting the High Court in London to order Samsung to pay this amount for 26 digital watch faces that it claims were designed to resemble its brands, misrepresenting them to consumers who believed they were purchasing authentic products.

      According to a report by Reuters, Swatch's claim relates to trademark violations that occurred from October 2015 to February 2019. During this period, the watchmaker asserts that the disputed watch-face apps were downloaded approximately 160,000 times across Britain and the European Union, with each download serving as a subtle advertisement for what Swatch calls an inferior imitation of a unique design. The brands involved in the conflict include Swatch itself, as well as Omega, Tissot, and Longines.

      Samsung's legal team has dismissed the financial claim as "exaggerated" and "disconnected from reality," arguing that Swatch incurred no loss and Samsung derived no significant gain from the watch faces. This type of rhetoric is common in cases where liability has been established and only financial restitution remains to be debated.

      In this instance, liability has indeed been confirmed. The High Court ruled against Samsung in 2022, concluding that the watch faces infringed Swatch's trademarks. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in late 2023, once again siding with the Biel-based company.

      Currently, the court is tasked with determining the financial value of the infringement, which is often less scrutinized than the initial verdict but equally important to the parties involved. This situation arises in the context of modern smartwatch conflicts, where Samsung operated an app store for its devices, allowing third-party developers to upload watch faces. Swatch successfully argued that some of these designs closely resembled its trademarks, potentially misleading consumers.

      The pressing question for the judge is how to quantify the value of a downloaded watch face image when the actual watch belongs to a different brand. For Samsung, this timing is particularly inconvenient, given its history of intellectual property disputes in Europe. The company has faced more than ten years of legal battles in European courts over issues of design and patents, from extended litigation with Apple to fines in Italy related to software updates.

      Trademark litigation typically doesn't generate the eye-catching figures seen in antitrust cases, where penalties like Google's record €5 billion fine set a significant precedent. However, a $170 million claim concerning watch faces is notably substantial in comparison. It also reflects Swatch's commitment to the smartwatch sector, a market it initially approached with caution. The company has spent years strategizing how to compete with the Apple Watch while safeguarding the aesthetic of its classic models, as the digital face becomes an increasingly vital representation of the brand.

      A broader issue also arises here: smartwatch faces exist in a complex legal area that combines elements of software, design, and branding. Developers can create watch faces that evoke luxury watches without replicating any mechanical components since these products lack such parts. Swatch's legal victory confirmed that a digital representation of a protected design could infringe a trademark in the same way a physical counterfeit can, and the damages phase will determine the practical value of that legal protection.

      Platform owners hosting third-party watch faces, including Samsung, will pay close attention to the final figure. While the sum is relatively small compared to Samsung's overall financial portfolio, which relies heavily on semiconductors and large-scale industrial investments, Swatch appears primarily concerned with the principle at stake. The High Court will now ascertain the cost associated with that principle.