Samsung Electronics Co. (005930.KS) must pay Swatch Group AG (UHR.SW) $11.6 million in damages after a London judge ruled that the South Korean tech giant unlawfully hosted smartwatch screen designs that replicated the Swiss watchmaker’s iconic timepieces.

The High Court in London handed down the decision Wednesday, finding that Samsung’s Galaxy app store served as a distribution channel for third-party watch face displays copying brands owned by Swatch, including Breguet, Longines, and Omega. Judge Marcus Smith awarded $10 million specifically for what he termed “store display infringements,” concluding that the mere hosting of these apps on Samsung’s platform damaged Swatch’s brand interests regardless of whether consumers actually downloaded them.

“Use of the Swatch Group brands on Samsung’s supermarket shelves, downloadable for nothing or for little money, is to my mind very damaging,” Smith said in the ruling. “The low price is demeaning of the brands the Swatch Group seek to promulgate.”

The damages inquiry followed a 2022 High Court judgment that found Samsung liable for trademark infringement by allowing designs replicating Swatch watches to appear as digital displays on its app store between October 2015 and February 2019. Samsung subsequently lost an appeal against that earlier ruling.

Swatch had originally sought approximately $170 million in compensation, arguing that the unauthorized use of its well-known watch designs on a major technology platform represented a significant violation of its intellectual property. Samsung countered that the claim was excessive, contending that Swatch suffered no actual damage and that its own revenue from the relevant apps amounted to only about $301. The company also emphasized that the smartwatch screen designs at issue were created by third-party developers, not by Samsung itself.

The court, however, took a different view. In reaching his decision, Smith focused on the broader implications of allowing luxury brand imagery to circulate freely or at minimal cost on a digital marketplace. The judge’s reasoning suggested that even if direct financial losses were difficult to quantify, the reputational harm to Swatch’s carefully cultivated brand image constituted a real and compensable injury.

Brand Protection at the Core

Swatch Group, which owns a portfolio of prestigious watch brands alongside Breguet, Longines, and Omega — including Tissot — has spent decades building and defending its trademarks in the luxury goods market. The company argued that Samsung’s platform effectively undermined that investment by making counterfeit-style digital versions of its designs readily available.

After the court’s decision, Swatch Group issued a statement criticizing Samsung’s approach to the litigation. The company said the electronics maker “repeatedly tried to play down the scale and significance of the infringement by belittling compensation for Swatch Group’s well-known brands.”

Samsung responded with a more measured statement, saying it is “carefully reviewing the court’s decision and will consider all possible responses, including an appeal.” A further challenge would extend a legal battle that has already spanned multiple years and at least one prior appellate ruling.

The case highlights the growing tension between traditional luxury goods manufacturers and technology platforms that host user-generated or third-party content. As smartwatches have become mainstream consumer devices, the ability to customize watch faces has created a gray area where digital reproductions of physical product designs can circulate without authorization from the original brand owners.

For Samsung, the ruling represents a relatively modest financial penalty compared with the company’s overall revenue, but it carries symbolic weight in establishing that app store operators can be held responsible for trademark infringements occurring on their platforms — even when the offending content originates from third-party developers.

The decision may also have implications for other technology companies operating digital marketplaces where third-party content can infringe on established brands. It suggests that hosting such content, rather than merely creating it, can be sufficient to establish liability in certain trademark contexts.

Case TimelineDevelopmentOctober 2015 – February 2019Period during which infringing watch faces were available on Samsung’s app store2022High Court finds Samsung liable for trademark infringementAfter 2022 rulingSamsung loses appeal against liability findingAugust 2026Damages inquiry concludes with $11.6 million award to Swatch

Note: Timeline reflects key procedural milestones in the Swatch Group v. Samsung Electronics trademark dispute as established in court proceedings.

Swatch’s victory, while far short of the $170 million it initially sought, nevertheless affirms the principle that digital reproductions of protected designs can constitute meaningful trademark violations. The $11.6 million award — approximately 16.1 billion Korean won — represents one of the more notable damages amounts in a case involving smartwatch customization, an area where legal precedent has been relatively sparse.

For investors, the ruling is unlikely to have a material impact on Samsung’s financial position given the company’s scale, but it adds to a series of legal challenges the electronics maker has navigated in European courts. The possibility of an appeal means the final outcome may not be settled for some time.