Swatch Group is seeking $170 million in damages from Samsung Electronics over allegations that the technology company allowed digital replicas of its luxury watch designs to appear on Samsung’s smartwatches. The dispute centers on 26 third-party “watch face” apps that Swatch says unlawfully copied the appearance of its high-end brands, including Omega, Tissot, and Breguet.

The legal proceedings are underway in the High Court in London, where the court is determining the amount of damages owed following earlier rulings in Swatch’s favor. Samsung was found liable for trademark infringement in 2022, a decision upheld on appeal. Though the infringing software was developed by third parties, Samsung was held responsible because it controlled the app review process and promoted its smartwatches using appealing watch faces. The case has broader implications across the European Union, as Swatch filed its lawsuit before the end of the Brexit transition period in 2020, allowing the London court to set damages applicable throughout the bloc.

Swatch claims the offending apps were downloaded approximately 160,000 times in the UK and EU between October 2015 and February 2019, and describes the use of its designs as a “large-scale appropriation” of its intellectual property. The company argues that these “knock-offs” undermine the exclusivity and value of its luxury timepieces, with Sylvain Dolla, chief executive of Tissot, stating in a witness statement that the group has a strict policy against licensing its brands to third parties—especially to other watch or smartwatch manufacturers. Dolla further cautioned that allowing its prestigious brands to appear on digital smartwatch faces would diminish the perceived value of its traditional Swiss watches.

Swatch’s legal team presented expert testimony to support their calculation of damages based on a hypothetical licensing model. Barrister Daniel Selmi characterized the case as a defence of valuable and carefully protected trademarks, criticizing Samsung’s attempts to minimize the significance of the infringement.

Samsung, through counsel Daniel Alexander KC, challenged the size of the damages claim as “extraordinary” and disconnected from the actual harm caused. The defence emphasized that the infringing apps were not part of Samsung’s official marketing efforts, lacked prominence, and were promptly removed once issues were raised. Alexander stated that nearly all the apps in question were free to download and that total related revenue amounted to just over $1,000, with only a fraction attributable to Samsung. He argued that Swatch suffered no meaningful damage and that any benefit to Samsung was negligible, contending that damages, if any, should be minimal.

The judge, Mr Justice Marcus Smith, is expected to deliver a ruling on the damages amount at a later date. Parallel proceedings in the United States have been put on hold pending the outcome of the London case.