{"id":133389,"date":"2026-08-27T01:00:59","date_gmt":"2026-08-27T01:00:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/133389\/"},"modified":"2026-08-27T01:00:59","modified_gmt":"2026-08-27T01:00:59","slug":"samsung-loses-swatch-lawsuit-and-must-pay-11-6-million","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/133389\/","title":{"rendered":"Samsung Loses Swatch Lawsuit And Must Pay $11.6 Million"},"content":{"rendered":"

SammyGuru is reader-supported. We have affiliate and sponsored partnerships, so we may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site \u2014 at no extra cost to you. Learn more<\/a>.<\/p>\n

August 26, 2026 \u2022 2 min read<\/p>\n

Samsung has lost a long-running legal battle with Swatch Group<\/a> over digital watch faces offered through its app store. A UK High Court has ordered the company to pay $11.6 million after finding Samsung responsible for apps that used designs and trademarks associated with Swatch\u2019s luxury watch brands (via Bloomberg<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Samsung is on the hook for third-party watch faces<\/p>\n

The case involves around 30 smartwatch apps that were available on Samsung\u2019s Galaxy App Store from 2015 to 2019. The apps let Galaxy Watch owners use watch faces inspired by brands including Omega, Breguet, Blancpain, Longines, and Tissot.<\/p>\n

Swatch said the apps infringed 23 of its trademarks and were downloaded around 160,000 times across the UK and EU.<\/p>\n

Samsung\u2019s defense was pretty simple. It said the apps were made by independent developers, so the company shouldn\u2019t be on the hook for their content. Samsung also said it took the apps down once the alleged infringement was brought to its attention.<\/p>\n

\ud83c\udf81 SammyGuru Rewards<\/p>\n

Get free Bonus Gear with your next Galaxy<\/p>\n

Join SammyGuru Rewards \u2014 free. Every Galaxy you buy through SammyGuru comes with Bonus Gear: real accessories matched to your device, sent free to US members. Everyone earns Guru Points on everything, and you get a hand-picked wallpaper pack free every week.<\/p>\n

Join Rewards \u2014 it\u2019s free \u2192<\/a><\/p>\n

The court didn\u2019t buy that argument. Samsung wasn\u2019t just providing storage for the apps. It played a role in reviewing and distributing them through its store, which meant the company could be held responsible for making the infringing content available to users.<\/p>\n

And this isn\u2019t the first time Samsung has lost on this issue. A 2022 High Court ruling found the company liable for trademark infringement, and Samsung\u2019s appeal was later rejected by the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n

Swatch originally wanted around $170 million, but the court awarded $11.6 million instead. About $10 million of the final amount relates to the use of Swatch trademarks through Samsung\u2019s app store.<\/p>\n

The court said making branded watch designs available for little or no cost could undermine the exclusivity Swatch has built around its brands. Samsung is now reviewing the latest judgment and hasn\u2019t ruled out another appeal.<\/p>\n

\"Abhinav<\/p>\n

Written by<\/p>\n

Abhinav Anand<\/a><\/p>\n

Abhinav Anand is the News Editor at SammyGuru and a technology journalist based in New Delhi. Before joining SammyGuru, he contributed to numerous outlets, including Android Headlines, ExtremeTech, The Mac Observer, Financial Express, Economic Times, iGeeksBlog, KnowTechie, PhonesWiki, SlashGear, and more. You can reach him at [email\u00a0protected]<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"SammyGuru is reader-supported. We have affiliate and sponsored partnerships, so we may earn a commission when you buy…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":133390,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[127,223,36320],"class_list":["post-133389","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-samsung","tag-samsung","tag-samsung-group","tag-swatch"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133389","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133389"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133389\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/133390"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133389"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133389"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/korea\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133389"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}