LONDON, June 26 \u2014 Swiss watchmaker Swatch is seeking US$170 million (RM695 million) in damages in a lawsuit against Samsung in which it claims the South Korean electronics giant allowed digital clones of Swatch watches on Samsung smartwatches, the Financial Times reported on Friday citing court documents.<\/p>\n
A British judge is expected to rule on damages soon after the High Court in London in 2022 found Samsung liable for trademark infringement over third-party apps available on Samsung smartwatches.<\/p>\n
The apps enabled users to replicate popular models by Swatch-owned brands including luxury labels Omega and Tissot.<\/p>\n
The court case, which began in 2019 before Britain\u2019s official exit from the European Union, also relates to infringement in the bloc.<\/p>\n
The upcoming ruling is also expected to clear the way for a parallel Swatch claim against a Samsung subsidiary in the US, according to the FT.<\/p>\n
The Swiss watch industry faces a growing threat from the fast-developing market for smartwatches, with companies like Samsung, Apple and Huawei among major producers.<\/p>\n
The FT said representatives of Swatch and Samsung have filed written statements to the High Court which is now determining damages. In the reported statements, Swatch accused Samsung of \u201clarge-scale appropriation\u201d of \u201cvaluable and carefully protected\u201d trademarks, while Samsung called the demands \u201cextravagant\u201d and outsized.<\/p>\n
A spokesperson for Swatch said the group would not comment on the ongoing legal procedure.<\/p>\n
Samsung did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.<\/p>\n
Swatch, whose groups produce timepieces ranging from affordable plastic watches to luxury models worth tens of thousands of dollars, sells connected watches such as the SwatchPAY! but has so far not launched any smartwatches itself. \u2014 Reuters\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"LONDON, June 26 \u2014 Swiss watchmaker Swatch is seeking US$170 million (RM695 million) in damages in a lawsuit…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":555936,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[258],"tags":[18,282,173142,19,17,237814,1470,7189,68759,82,137766],"class_list":["post-555935","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-gadgets","tag-eire","tag-gadgets","tag-high-court-london","tag-ie","tag-ireland","tag-omega-tissot","tag-samsung","tag-swatch","tag-swiss-watch-industry","tag-technology","tag-trademark-infringement"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@ie\/116818587999659784","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/555935","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=555935"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/555935\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/555936"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=555935"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=555935"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ie\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=555935"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}