A single watch face displayed on a smartwatch screen triggered a damages ruling worth 16.1 billion won. The platform that provided the marketplace, rather than the party that created the app, was held liable.
London’s High Court ruled that Samsung Electronics must pay Swatch Group $11.6 million, or about 16.1 billion won, in a damages lawsuit filed by the Swiss watchmaker, the Financial Times reported on the 26th local time.
The court previously found that Samsung had infringed trademark rights by allowing watch face apps based on the designs of Swatch Group brands such as Breguet, Longines, Omega, and Tissot to be sold through its app store from 2015 to 2019. The latest decision set the amount of compensation based on that infringement finding.
The app was made by developers, so why is Samsung paying?
A watch face is a clock design displayed on a smartwatch screen. Users can choose and change it like a wallpaper to suit their tastes, and products that copied the dials of luxury watches directly became popular.
The apps at issue were not created by Samsung Electronics but by third-party developers. Even so, Samsung was found responsible because it had opened the app store and allowed the apps to be distributed. It is a ruling that places greater responsibility on the platform in the long-running debate over how far an operator of an online marketplace must answer for trademark infringement by products sold there.
Swatch Group is the world’s largest watch company, with brands including Breguet, Omega, Longines, and Tissot. The dial designs built up over more than a century have served as marks that make each brand recognizable. In other words, a watch face can itself function as a trademark.
The core issue in the case was the amount of damages. Samsung argued that Swatch Group suffered almost no actual harm and that revenue generated by the apps amounted to only $300. Judge Marcus Smith saw it differently.
He ruled that the fact that Swatch Group’s brands were made available on Samsung’s app store for free or at a bargain price had itself caused substantial harm to the brands’ value and property rights. The court also took into account Swatch Group’s decades of effort to manage and build recognition for its brands when calculating damages.
In luxury brands, scarcity is part of the value itself. The logic is that if anyone can put a watch dial worth millions of won on their wrist for free, the brand’s accumulated value is diminished. By treating brand dilution, rather than sales revenue, as the damage, the court arrived at the 16.1 billion won figure.
Samsung said it was “carefully reviewing the High Court’s decision and will consider all possible response measures, including an appeal.” Swatch Group welcomed the ruling, saying Samsung had tried to downplay the scale and significance of the infringement.
How far does marketplace responsibility extend?
The dispute was lengthy. The apps in question were distributed from 2015 to 2019, and after the infringement finding was made, the proceedings moved separately to the damages assessment stage. A conflict that had dragged on for years has now reached the point of fixing the final amount.
The issue of platform liability crosses borders. In Europe, case law has built up holding online marketplace operators liable if they tolerate the distribution of counterfeit goods. The idea is that if a company does more than merely rent out space and instead participates in sales through exposure and recommendations, it cannot be seen as a passive bystander.
It was also confirmed that damages can be set independently of the sales actually uncovered. The argument that since the infringement generated little money, the damage must also be small did not hold. For platforms, each registered app becomes a potential source of loss.
The situation in Korea is no different. On app marketplaces, open markets, and merch platforms, products using well-known brand logos and characters have been a persistent problem. This ruling is read as a signal that post-upload removal alone is not enough, and that review procedures at the registration stage and systems for handling rights holders’ complaints must be strengthened.
Could my watch face be a problem too?
Watch faces that users have already downloaded and are using are not immediately a problem. Responsibility lies with the distributor and the developer who created them. However, apps that infringe copyright or trademark rights are taken down from the marketplace, updates stop, and they cannot be downloaded again when the user changes devices.
For companies that own brands, the ruling offers a precedent to watch. It confirms that if action is delayed because the scale of infringement seems small, brand value can still be eroded, and that damages can be broadened if harm is framed as brand dilution.
Smartwatch makers still face another challenge. Watch faces are a key factor in determining a smartwatch’s appeal. An open approach helps the ecosystem grow, but tighter control reduces variety. That is why supplying watch faces through official partnerships with legitimate brands is being discussed as an alternative.
If Samsung appeals, the dispute will continue. Whether upheld or overturned, a benchmark has already been drawn for how far online marketplaces must be responsible for the brands of others. The costs that platform operators must bear have also become clear.