Cover: the original Jaquet Droz Tropical Bird Repeater. The Tropical Birds app reproduced in the court record appears below. Photograph: Jaquet Droz.
Swatch v Samsung raises a question that collectors will recognise: how much of a watch’s identity belongs to the object, and how much resides in the name and design on its dial?
A digital watch face can borrow familiar lettering and proportions without reproducing the movement, materials or history behind them. That separation is what makes this dispute interesting beyond its headline damages award.
What happened in Swatch v Samsung
On 26 August 2026, the High Court assessed damages at US$11.6 million for trade mark infringements involving watch-face apps offered through Samsung’s Galaxy App store. The damages judgment follows the 2022 liability decision and its affirmation on appeal in December 2023.
The apps were developed by third parties. Available between 2015 and 2019, the infringing faces were downloaded around 160,000 times across the UK and EU.
Swatch Group’s statement following the appeal identifies brands ranging from Swatch and Tissot to Omega, Breguet and Jaquet Droz. This was not exclusively a dispute about imitating watches beyond an ordinary buyer’s reach.
The distinction between copyright and trade marks matters here. The case centred on protected names and signs used in digital faces and app listings, rather than a general ruling that all resemblance between watch designs is unlawful.
Why Samsung was responsible
Samsung argued that it supplied the platform, while independent developers supplied the apps. However, the court considered the company’s broader involvement, including developer support, app review and promotion of the available faces as part of its smartwatch offering.
As Dechert explains in its analysis of the appeal, those activities went beyond a purely passive hosting role. The result depended on Samsung’s conduct, not simply the existence of an app store.
The question of who controls what runs on a device is familiar from Nintendo’s licensed games and Apple’s App Store. Independent developers can expand a product’s appeal, while the manufacturer sets the terms of access.
Samsung’s watch faces brought that relationship into watchmaking: another company’s name and dial could become part of the attraction of its hardware. Samsung did review the apps, but its involvement also extended to their distribution and promotion. The case shows why a platform’s responsibility cannot be assessed simply by asking who wrote the software.
A dial also identifies its maker
A collector often begins with the dial because it offers clues about the watch’s identity. Typography, signatures and the relationship between the hands and markers help establish what the object claims to be.
That habit of looking is relevant even when the person downloading a digital face knows exactly what they own. A name on the wrist can communicate something different to another person seeing it.
The Court of Appeal considered this post-sale context: an observer might understand the dial branding as identifying the watch’s manufacturer. Slaughter and May’s account explains why the wearer’s own knowledge did not dispose of that issue.
What a digital face cannot reproduce
There is a reasonable collector’s argument that a downloaded image takes little away from the pleasure of owning a mechanical watch. It cannot reproduce the resistance of a winding crown, the finishing of a movement or the way a physical dial changes under light.
Our examination of Credor’s approach to watchmaking considers that relationship between craft and the finished object. Much of what makes a watch rewarding becomes apparent through attention rather than immediate recognition.
Nor should every download be treated as a lost sale. Someone who enjoys changing a smartwatch’s appearance may never have intended to buy the watch it resembles, or may already collect traditional watches.
The more persuasive concern is that a recognised name can add appeal to another product without permission. Its value is not exhausted by asking whether the original manufacturer lost a customer.
That distinction also belongs within the wider discussion of watch collecting culture: appreciation of an object and recognition of its branding can overlap without being identical.
Why the damages exceeded the app revenue
Swatch Group’s expert valued the claim at approximately US$170 million; Samsung’s expert assessed damages at US$301. The court rejected both extremes.
Its award comprised US$10 million for store-display infringements and US$1.6 million for dial branding, using US$10 across approximately 160,000 downloads for the latter. These were negotiation damages, not a finding that equivalent watch sales had been lost.
The question was the value of permission for the relevant use. Mishcon de Reya’s analysis explains why neither a full-scale co-branding arrangement nor a calculation confined to realised app income adequately described that permission.
The distinction is commercially important. Charging very little for an unauthorised use does not, by itself, establish that the rights involved are worth very little.
Ownership, customisation and brand control
The separate Rolex and Artisans de Genève dispute provides a useful comparison. In January 2024, the Swiss Supreme Court distinguished customising a customer’s watch for private use from buying watches to modify and resell; advertising questions were returned for further consideration. Hodinkee’s report sets out those distinctions.
The two cases concern different activities and legal systems. Changing an object already owned is not the same as distributing another manufacturer’s branding through a commercial platform.
Together, they reveal how ownership of a watch and control over its commercial identity can lead to different questions. That boundary deserves more care than a simple argument between traditional watchmakers and technology companies.
What the case means for collectors
Swatch v Samsung does not require collectors to choose between enjoying mechanical watches and respecting digital ones. It asks us to consider what happens when a manufacturer’s identity becomes a downloadable feature of somebody else’s product.
The physical watch retains qualities that an image cannot provide. Recognising those qualities is compatible with recognising the maker’s interest in where its name appears and what that name seems to promise.
Following the award, Samsung said it was considering an appeal, as reported by Bloomberg via Moneyweb. This article discusses the published decisions and is editorial analysis, not legal advice.
About the author
Isaac Kaufman covers the business and culture of watchmaking for Watch & Bullion, exploring how technology, ownership and design shape the industry.
