Believe it or not, Swatch and Samsung have been locked in a legal battle for years. Earlier today, the Financial Times reported that the Swiss watchmaker is seeking US$170 million (~RM694 million) in damages from the tech giant.
For those wondering, the dispute dates back to 2019, when Swatch accused Samsung of infringing its intellectual property by copying and distributing “digital clones” of its watch face designs through third-party apps on the Galaxy Store. The lawsuit centres on 26 digital watch faces that allegedly copied designs from several of Swatch Group’s best-known brands, including Omega, Tissot, and Breguet, to name a few.
Under normal circumstances, Samsung would not be directly liable because third-party developers created and uploaded the watch faces. However, the court found the company partly responsible because it operated the Galaxy Store, reviewed apps before publication, and made the watch faces available for download. The court also noted that Samsung promoted some of its smartwatches using the watch faces in question.
After rejecting Samsung’s appeal, the High Court in London is now determining the damages owed to Swatch. According to the watchmaker, consumers downloaded the watch face apps around 160,000 times across the UK and European Union, where they offered what Swatch described as “knock-offs” of its luxury watch dials. Swatch is therefore seeking US$170 million in damages for the period between October 2015 and February 2019.
Sylvain Dolla, CEO of Tissot, noted that Swatch has a policy of not licensing its brands to third parties. He added that while co-branding deals could earn the company millions, allowing its high-end brands to appear on “commodity” smartwatches would “kill the value of the fine Swiss watch”.
Meanwhile, Swatch’s barrister, Daniel Selmi, argued that the case involved the “large-scale appropriation” of “valuable and carefully protected” trademarks. He also said Samsung had repeatedly tried to downplay the seriousness of the infringements by “trivialising the level of true compensation”.
Meanwhile, Samsung’s barrister, Daniel Alexander KC, described Swatch’s claim as “extravagant” and based on a “fundamentally flawed” approach that “bears no relationship to the damage suffered”. He argued that the apps “had no prominence” and that Samsung did not use them in any smartwatch marketing, and that Samsung did not want them there. He added that Samsung removed the apps as soon as the issue was raised.
Alexander also noted that the apps were free to download and generated just over US$1,000 (~RM4,087) in revenue during the period, of which around US$300 (~RM1,226) went to Samsung while the remainder went to the developers. “Swatch did not suffer any damage, and the benefit to Samsung was negligible,” he said.
At the time of writing, the High Court is determining how much in damages to award Swatch. That said, the case isn’t over, as the company has also filed a lawsuit in the United States, which is awaiting the decision in London. The court will hear closing arguments on Friday, and the judge will deliver a verdict at a later date.
(Source: Financial Times, SWI swissinfo.ch)
