Story Highlight
– Swatch Group seeks $170 million from Samsung in damages.
– Case follows 2022 court ruling on trademark infringement.
– Samsung claims dispute apps generated negligible revenue.
– Swatch emphasizes luxury brands’ licensing value and prestige.
– Ruling may impact global luxury watch intellectual property rights.
Full Story
The Swatch Group is pursuing $170 million in damages from Samsung in a significant trademark lawsuit that may have far-reaching effects on the relationship between luxury watch designs and smartwatch technology.
This legal action follows a 2022 judgment from the High Court in London, which found Samsung guilty of trademark infringement. The ruling was based on third-party applications within the Samsung smartwatch ecosystem that included digital watch faces resembling renowned designs from Swatch Group’s brands, such as Omega and Tissot.
The current proceedings, initiated last week, aim to determine the appropriate level of damages. As stated in court documents, Swatch contends that the compensation should correspond to the hypothetical licensing value of its intellectual property across ten different brands, resulting in the substantial claim of approximately $170 million. The Swatch Group maintains that this figure accurately indicates the prestige and commercial worth of some of the most distinguished trademarks in Swiss watchmaking.
In response, Samsung has dismissed the claim’s magnitude, labelling it “extravagant” in its court submissions. The tech company maintains that the relevant apps were developed by third parties, generated minimal revenue, and were subsequently removed following the emergence of trademark concerns.
Iain Connor, an intellectual property specialist at the law firm Michelmores, commented on the case, noting its significance: “Trade mark cases rarely lead to huge awards of damages because claimants typically struggle to prove loss. What makes this case particularly intriguing is that no consumer purchased a Samsung smartwatch believing it to be connected to Swatch or any of its brands. They understood that the Samsung device offered valuable features, including changeable watch faces imitating luxury designs.”
According to Connor, Swatch cannot successfully argue that it has lost sales to calculate appropriate damages. However, he acknowledges that the value a technology partner might pay for a license to associate with luxury brands can reach substantial figures, which explains the high amount being claimed.
“Swatch has a strong position to argue the worth of its licensing agreements,” Connor added, referencing numerous sponsorship deals that keep the brands’ prestige intact and demonstrate what partners would typically pay for affiliation rights.
Beyond the financial stakes, this case also serves as a critical examination of how established luxury watchmakers protect their intellectual property amidst the rise of smart technology.
Despite interest from tech companies, the Swatch Group has opted against launching a fully-fledged smartwatch, instead choosing to enhance connectivity through features like SwatchPAY!, while maintaining the exclusivity associated with its mechanical and quartz watches.
Court evidence includes testimony from Tissot’s CEO, Sylvain Dolla, who asserted that allowing the use of famous watch designs on generic smartwatches would jeopardize years of effort invested in preserving the prestige of Swiss watch brands. He argued that such collaborations would dilute the uniqueness that luxury watchmaking relies upon.
This ongoing legal dispute began in 2019, prior to the UK’s exit from the European Union, allowing the London trial to address alleged trademark infringements in both the UK and EU territories. A decision regarding damages is anticipated after the trial concludes, which may also affect similar litigation against a Samsung subsidiary in the United States.
