What are the 10 Swatch brands involved in the British court ruling?

The 10 brands of the Swatch group mentioned in the judgment are: Breguet, Blancpain, Jaquet Droz, Glashütte Original, Omega, Longines, Tissot, Hamilton, Mido and Swatch itself. All of these brands were copied into downloadable apps from Samsung's Galaxy App Store between 2015 and 2019.

How much did Samsung have to pay for trademark infringement?

The UK court ordered Samsung to pay $11.6 million (equivalent to about 9.4 million Swiss francs) for infringement of Swatch's trademarks. Swatch had initially asked for $170 million, while Samsung only offered $301 million. The court chose an intermediate but still significant amount for the sector.

How many people downloaded the fake apps?

Counterfeit apps were downloaded around 160,000 times in the UK and EU between October 2015 and February 2019. They all imitated the digital watch faces of Swatch Group's iconic brands. Some were available for free, others for a fee.

Is the legal conflict between Swatch and Samsung over?

No. While the British judgment is final (also upheld on appeal in 2023), a separate proceeding is still ongoing in the United States in the New York courts involving the same 10 Swatch trademarks against Samsung. This American proceeding could lead to further compensation or different developments according to local jurisprudence.

Who developed the counterfeit apps?

According to the judgment, the applications were developed by third parties, not directly by Samsung. However, the British Court of Appeal ruled in 2023 that this fact did not change the verdict: Samsung remains liable for offering and distributing the counterfeit apps in its Galaxy App Store without verifying their compliance with registered trademarks.

Swatch beats Samsung: 11.6 million in compensation (cross-border guide)

Di Redazione Frontaliere Ticino · Published on 31 August 2026

Close-up of luxury Swiss watchfaces and mechanical components in professional studio photography

UK court orders Samsung to pay $11.6 million for infringement of Swiss watch brands in the Galaxy App Store between 2015 and 2019.

Context

In a nutshell

UK court: Samsung to pay $11.6 million to Swatch Group
Reason: counterfeiting of iconic brands in the Galaxy Store app (2015-2019)
160,000 discharges in the UK and EU; 10 Swiss brands affected

Key facts

What: Judgment on infringement of digital watch trademarks
When: 26 August (made public by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales)
Where: London (UK court); plaintiff Swatch in Bienne (BE), defendant Samsung (Korea)
Who: Swatch Group vs. Samsung Electronics
Amount: $11.6 million (CHF 9.4 million)
Initial request: Swatch asked for 170 million; Samsung offered 301 dollars
Brands involved: Breguet, Blancpain, Jaquet Droz, Glashütte Original, Omega, Longines, Tissot, Hamilton, Mido, Swatch
Estimated discharges: Approximately 160,000 in the UK and European Union

Swatch won in London the dispute that for years had pitted it against Samsung over the counterfeiting of digital watch faces. The British court has ordered the South Korean tech giant to pay the Swiss watch company $11.6 million, equal to about 9.4 million francs. The judgment was made public on 26 August by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

The gap between the claims is huge. Swatch Group was asking for 170 million for trademark infringement, while Samsung Electronics was willing to pay only 301 dollars. The British court has decided for an amount

Operational details

The importance of brand protection in digital commerce

The British judgment represents a significant victory for the protection of Swiss trademarks at the international level. The Swiss watch industry, concentrated in the Jura and other Swiss regions, is among the most exposed to global imitations, especially in the context of digital platforms and mobile commerce. The ten brands involved-from Omega to Tissot, from Longines to Breguet-are recognizable icons of "made in Switzerland" and represent a heritage of centuries-old reputation.

The British court recognised the damage caused by the 160,000 illegal discharges, while not condemning Samsung to the required ceiling. This compromise reveals how international justice balances, on the one hand, the reputational and commercial damage suffered by the owners of original trademarks; on the other, the proportionality with respect to the actual number of violations. The $11.6 million - more than the $301 million proposed by Samsung - is a signal that digital platforms cannot evade liability for counterfeit content distributed under their stewardship.

Implications for the Swiss economy and employment

Swatch Group employs thousands of people in Switzerland, particularly in Bienne, in production, research and development. Trademark protection is essential to maintain the value of the company's production portfolio and, of

Useful tools to protect your net income

To reduce FX leakage, compare CHF-EUR exchange options and banks for cross-border workers.

Key points

Proceedings still open in the United States

The British judgment does not end the conflict between Swatch and Samsung. In the United States, the same ten Swatch Group trademarks brought separate proceedings against Samsung in the New York courts. This proceeding is still ongoing and could lead to further convictions or different developments, depending on American jurisprudence.

This means that the South Korean company could face further compensation orders in the US market, where the Galaxy App Store has achieved considerable popularity. The geographical fragmentation of the proceedings-British concluded, US ongoing-is typical of international trademark law, where there is no single supranational authority outside the European Union. Each jurisdiction applies its own law, resulting in longer times and higher legal costs for both parties.

How Swiss companies protect brands

The Swatch-Samsung affair illustrates the defensive strategies that Swiss companies adopt to protect their brands in an increasingly interconnected digital economy. International registration with patent and trademark offices is the first line of defense. However, continued vigilance on digital platforms-rapid identification of counterfeit applications or products-requires significant resources.

Once a violation is identified, legal recourse remains

Discover Ticino job offers updated daily: 4,000+ positions from Swiss companies hiring cross-border workers.

Source: tio.ch

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the 10 Swatch brands involved in the British court ruling?: The 10 brands of the Swatch group mentioned in the judgment are: Breguet, Blancpain, Jaquet Droz, Glashütte Original, Omega, Longines, Tissot, Hamilton, Mido and Swatch itself. All of these brands were copied into downloadable apps from Samsung's Galaxy App Store between 2015 and 2019.
How much did Samsung have to pay for trademark infringement?: The UK court ordered Samsung to pay $11.6 million (equivalent to about 9.4 million Swiss francs) for infringement of Swatch's trademarks. Swatch had initially asked for $170 million, while Samsung only offered $301 million. The court chose an intermediate but still significant amount for the sector.
How many people downloaded the fake apps?: Counterfeit apps were downloaded around 160,000 times in the UK and EU between October 2015 and February 2019. They all imitated the digital watch faces of Swatch Group's iconic brands. Some were available for free, others for a fee.
Is the legal conflict between Swatch and Samsung over?: No. While the British judgment is final (also upheld on appeal in 2023), a separate proceeding is still ongoing in the United States in the New York courts involving the same 10 Swatch trademarks against Samsung. This American proceeding could lead to further compensation or different developments according to local jurisprudence.
Who developed the counterfeit apps?: According to the judgment, the applications were developed by third parties, not directly by Samsung. However, the British Court of Appeal ruled in 2023 that this fact did not change the verdict: Samsung remains liable for offering and distributing the counterfeit apps in its Galaxy App Store without verifying their compliance with registered trademarks.