Ten brands. Twenty-three infringed trade marks. Thirty watch face apps. One number still missing.
The Swatch Samsung trademark lawsuit has reached its final act at the High Court in London, where closing arguments in the damages trial wrapped on June 26. The judge has reserved judgment, and watch executives, platform operators and IP lawyers on three continents are waiting on the same decision.
What is the Swatch Samsung trademark lawsuit about?
Between October 2015 and February 2019, Samsung’s Galaxy Store offered third-party apps that let Galaxy smartwatch owners replace the default screen with digital reproductions of Swatch Group dials. The apps were downloaded roughly 160,000 times across the UK and EU before Samsung removed them.
Swatch sued in 2019 and won on liability in 2022. The pivotal finding concerned Samsung’s role: because the company reviewed the content and functionality of every app before listing it, the court held its conduct was active — it could not position itself as a neutral marketplace. The Court of Appeal upheld that reasoning in 2024. Only the price remains open.
Why does the damages theory matter?
Swatch built its claim on hypothetical licence fees: what Samsung would have paid to legitimately license the designs across ten Swatch Group brands. Samsung counters that it earned about $300 US in commissions from the apps and calls the demand extravagant.
The judge’s choice between those positions is the entire case. Accepting Swatch’s methodology at or near full value would establish that a dial’s visual identity is a licensable asset priced by the prestige of the brand, not by the revenue of the infringer.
How does this affect jewellers and watch retailers?
The first-order effect lands on platforms. A strong award is expected to open the way for a parallel Swatch claim already waiting against a Samsung subsidiary in the United States, and to encourage enforcement against app marketplaces generally. Platforms respond the only way they can: stricter review, fewer look-alike dials.
For the retail floor, that matters commercially. A customer who can dress a $400 smartwatch as a Speedmaster for free has one more reason to postpone the real purchase. Enforcement that removes convincing digital copies protects the scarcity that supports mechanical watch pricing.
There is a Canadian dimension even though no Canadian litigation or download data is part of the claim: UK trademark reasoning is regularly cited in Canadian courts, and the brands being defended anchor watch business here from Vancouver to Halifax.
What are the risks?
Judges have discretion to land anywhere between $300 and $170 million. A modest award would blunt the precedent and signal to platforms that infringement is a manageable cost of doing business — the opposite of deterrence. Retailers should also note the deeper ambiguity the case exposes: the court treated a digital image on a screen as capable of infringing a trade mark registered for watches, effectively answering — for trademark purposes at least — the old question of whether a smartwatch is a watch or an electronic device.
What should readers do next?
Nothing in your operation needs to change today. If you carry Swatch Group brands, follow the case to judgment, because the outcome shapes how aggressively your suppliers can defend the designs in your showcase. Canadian Jeweller will report the ruling when it is handed down.
FAQ
Q: How much is Swatch suing Samsung for? A: Swatch Group is claiming $170 million US in damages, calculated as the hypothetical licence fees Samsung would have paid to use the dial designs of ten Swatch Group brands.
Q: Did Samsung lose the Swatch trademark case? A: Yes. The UK High Court found Samsung liable for trademark infringement in 2022, and the Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2024. The current trial determines only the damages.
Q: Which watch brands were copied? A: The watch face apps reproduced dials from Swatch Group brands including Omega, Tissot, Longines, Breguet and Blancpain.
Q: When will the Swatch v Samsung ruling come out? A: Closing arguments ended June 26, 2026. The judge has reserved judgment, with a decision expected in the coming months.
Q: Does this case affect Canada? A: There are no Canadian proceedings, but UK trademark decisions are frequently cited in Canadian courts, and the outcome affects brands widely retailed in Canada.
