Swatch v Samsung Digital Clones Trade Mark Dispute

26th Jun 2026
Swatch’s trade mark dispute with Samsung has become a warning for app-store operators after English courts found Samsung liable for third-party watch face apps that copied luxury Swiss designs. The court record in Montres Breguet S.A. v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1127 (Ch) shows that the claim was brought by watch companies within the Swatch group against Samsung Electronics Co Ltd and Samsung Electronics UK Limited. The claimants included Montres Breguet S.A., Blancpain S.A., Montres Jaquet Droz S.A., Omega S.A., Compagnie Des Montres Longines, Francillon S.A., Tissot S.A., Mido S.A., Hamilton International S.A., Swatch S.A. and Glashütter Uhrenbetrieb GmbH. Mrs Justice Falk’s High Court judgment concerned digital watch face applications that could be downloaded to Samsung smartwatches through the Samsung Galaxy App Store. Swatch alleged that between October 2015 and February 2019, 23 trade marks were infringed by 30 watch face apps, with around 160,000 downloads in the UK and EU. The apps were created by third-party developers, but the claim focused on Samsung’s role in making them available to consumers. The point for lawyers is that Samsung was not treated simply as a neutral host. The Judiciary’s Court of Appeal hearing summary records that trade mark infringement had been established at trial and that Samsung controlled the process by which the apps were made available. That distinction matters for platform operators because review systems, app approval processes, developer terms and takedown procedures can become evidence in intellectual property litigation. The Court of Appeal decision in Montres Breguet S.A. v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1478 was heard by Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing. Samsung challenged whether the signs were used by Samsung rather than the app developers, whether the use related to smartwatches, and whether the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002 and the e-Commerce Directive hosting defence assisted its position. The appeal was dismissed. The public record also identifies Daniel Alexander KC and Ashton Chantrielle, instructed by Allen & Overy LLP for Samsung, and Simon Malynicz KC, Geoffrey Pritchard and Daniel Selmi, instructed by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP for the Swatch companies. That gives the dispute wider monitoring value across intellectual property, platform liability and legal services. Solicitors, barristers and in-house counsel should treat the case as a practical warning about third-party content risk. Businesses that approve, present and commercialise digital content may struggle to argue that infringement is solely the responsibility of developers. Law firm management should also read the judgment as a prompt to strengthen platform governance advice, particularly for technology clients, luxury brands and online marketplaces. For platform operators and their advisers, the lesson is practical: app review files, developer controls and takedown records may matter as much in court as the infringing content itself.