The High Court in London has ordered tech giant Samsung Electronics to pay $11.6 million in damages to Swatch Group following a long-running trade mark infringement dispute over digital "clones" hosted on Samsung’s smartwatch app store.
The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Marcus Smith, delivers crucial guidance on intermediary liability and establishes how courts may value brand dilution caused by digital platforms.
Background: Digital Clones on the Galaxy App Store
Between October 2015 and February 2019, third-party software developers uploaded digital watch face applications to Samsung’s Galaxy App Store. These applications allowed users to customize their smartwatches with digital dials that mimicked iconic designs from Swatch Group’s prestige portfolio, including Breguet, Blancpain, Omega, Longines, and Tissot.
Across the UK and the EU, these infringing apps were downloaded approximately 160,000 times with Swatch Group characterising the downloads as "knockoffs" which represented a "large-scale appropriation" of its valuable, carefully protected trade marks.
Samsung argued that:
- The apps were created by independent third parties, not Samsung itself.
It took down the software as soon as Swatch raised the issue.
Swatch suffered no actual harm, meaning damages should be limited to a nominal sum of $301 (reflecting Samsung's actual revenue earned from the apps).
Swatch Group initially demanded $170 million in damages, arguing that free or low-cost digital copies eroded the exclusivity and prestige of its luxury heritage brands.
Key Findings: Liability and Damages Breakdown
1. Control Over the Marketplace Drives Liability
Although the apps were created by third-party developers, Samsung was found liable for trade mark infringement in a 2022 decision (later upheld on appeal in 2023). The court held that Samsung was not merely a passive host: because it controlled the app review process and actively marketed smartwatches emphasizing attractive watch faces, it bore direct legal accountability for making the infringing trade marks available to consumers.
2. $10 Million Awarded for Store Display Harm Alone
The most recent judgement was issued as a result of a quantum trial held in June 2026, essentially being an inquiry as to the extent of damages that should be paid to the Swatch Group. The damages inquiry focused heavily on quantifying the economic impact of brand exposure.
Swatch Group argued that the appropriate level of damages was $170 million (based on expert evidence) on the basis that this would have been the amount negotiated if the parties had hypothetically agreed to a license. Samsung's expert, on the other hand, argued that the appropriate amount was $301 based solely on the actual revenue Samsung earned from paid downloads of the infringing apps.
Mr Justice Smith rejected both assessments and awarded $11.6 million in total damages commenting as follows:
“The rate is sufficiently high to incentivise companies who sell Apps via stores like the SGA store (both Apple and Google operate stores along these lines) to respect the intellectual property rights of others, without rendering their businesses uneconomic.”
Crucially, the judge allocated $10 million of the total $11.6 million award specifically for Samsung’s "store display infringements" - the harm caused by displaying Swatch's trade marks on the platform, regardless of whether a user actually downloaded the app.
Drawing a physical comparison, Mr Justice Smith noted:
"The use of the Swatch Group brands on Samsung’s supermarket shelves (to use the physical analogy), downloadable for nothing or for little money, is to my mind very damaging to the Swatch Group’s property interests. The low price is demeaning of the brands the Swatch Group seek to promulgate."
The remaining $1.6 million was calculated based on the number of downloads of the infringing apps, with a flat US$10 per download and multiplied this by the number of downloads (160,000).
Key Takeaways for Brand Owners and Platform Operators
The decision makes clear that platform operators cannot rely on passive host exemptions or basic notice-and-takedown protocols if they exercise review control or benefit from marketing the content. Operators must actively vet third-party uploads for trade mark conflicts.
The ruling establishes that trade mark infringement damages on digital platforms are not strictly capped by download revenues or platform commissions. Courts will recognize and penalise the loss of brand equity, exclusivity, and market prestige caused by platform exposure.
With parallel proceedings in the United States currently stayed pending the outcome of the UK trial, this UK judgment may set a persuasive precedent for international digital IP enforcement actions.
Next Steps
Samsung Electronics stated that it is carefully considering the judgment and evaluating legal options, including an appeal. Meanwhile, Swatch Group welcomed the ruling, highlighting that Samsung had repeatedly attempted to downplay the scale and significance of the infringement.
