Swatch files historic trademark lawsuit against Samsung

Iain Connor, intellectual property partner at the national law firm Michelmores, commented on the scale of the lawsuit, saying “This is massive. Trade mark cases rarely lead to huge awards of damages because the claimants usually have problems establishing loss." He elaborated on the complexity of such cases, explaining that "there are a number of ways a claimant can be compensated when they win an infringement case and with prestige brands such as Omega and Tissot asking the court to assess the loss on the basis of what a licensee would have to pay for the right to use the brand is always going to be best for the claimant in a case such as this." 

Connor noted the unique aspects of this case, stating “What makes this case interesting from a trade mark perspective is the fact that no consumer bought the Samsung smart watch thinking it was made by Swatch or one of its stable of brands." He further added that "consumers bought the Samsung watch knowing it had great features including the ability to change the face so that it looked like a luxury branded item. Therefore, Swatch can't claim that it lost any sales of watches to calculate the damages that should be paid."

Despite these hurdles, he acknowledged the potential financial implications for Samsung, as “in the field of luxury goods, what a technology partner would pay by way of a licence fee to be associated with the brand quickly runs into millions. This is why the claim is so large.” Connor highlighted that proving the potential financial benefits of a commercial partnership should be manageable for Swatch, remarking, “It should be relatively easy for Swatch to prove how much a licensee would be prepared to pay to be associated with its luxury brands because of all the sponsorship deals it does to maintain the prestige and value of its brands." He concluded by stating that “Swatch will say that it would never let its brands be used for free and that if it entered into a commercial partnership that would cost the partner many millions for the right to be associated with the brand."