Montres Breguet v Samsung: Court of Appeal says Samsung itself infringed trademarks with watch face apps
Montres BreguetvSamsung Electronics
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 15 December 2023
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Civ 1478
Running an active app store or marketplace can make you directly liable for infringing third-party content, not just the person who made it.
Swatch group companies sued Samsung over watch face apps, sold through Samsung's own app store, that used names like Breguet, Omega and Longines. The Court of Appeal agreed Samsung itself had infringed, not just the outside developers who made the apps.
What happened
Montres Breguet and other Swatch group companies brought a claim over 30 downloadable smartwatch "watch face" apps sold through the Samsung Galaxy App Store. The apps, made by independent developers, used names or on-screen displays identical or similar to well-known Swatch group trademarks, including Breguet, Omega and Longines. Samsung reviewed and approved every app before it went on sale, marketed its smartwatches around the availability of these watch faces, and took a cut of the revenue from each download. Samsung argued it was merely hosting content made by others and that it was not the party using the trademarks.
What did the court decide in Montres Breguet v Samsung Electronics?
The Court of Appeal dismissed Samsung's appeal. It held that Samsung's own conduct, not just that of the app developers, amounted to use of the infringing signs in its own commercial communications, because of how Samsung marketed and sold the apps. The infringing use was found to extend to the smartwatches themselves, not just the apps, because of the impression the watch-like dial branding created once the product was in use. The court also held Samsung could not rely on the e-Commerce Directive's hosting defence, which can shield a platform that acts only as a technical, automatic and passive conduit for content, because Samsung's role reviewing, curating and profiting from the apps was too active for that defence to apply.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that owning the platform doesn't put you above the content on it if you're actively curating and profiting from it. The more a business reviews, approves and markets third-party material sold through its store, the harder it becomes to claim it was just a passive host. A revenue share from sales of third-party goods or apps can itself be a sign of active involvement, not neutral hosting. Where a product's appearance when in use (not just how it's sold) carries a trademark risk, that use can count against the platform too.
Things to be aware of
- This decision turned heavily on Samsung's specific conduct, its marketing of smartwatches as watch-like, its detailed app review process, and its revenue share; a more passive, purely technical platform might reach a different result.
- Commentary suggests the Court of Appeal's approach to the e-Commerce Directive hosting defence departs from how EU courts have tended to apply it, so the position may differ outside the UK.
- The judgment addressed liability and an injunction; the financial remedies (damages and account of profits) sought by Swatch were not quantified in this ruling.
The businesses involved
Montres Breguet SA
Member of the Swatch Group, which owns watch brands including Breguet, Omega and Longines. Brought the claim as a trademark owner within the group.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd
Active UK company, registered in England since 1984 and based in Chertsey, part of the Samsung group. It operated the Galaxy App Store from which the disputed watch face apps were downloaded. Companies House lists it as a dormant company and it holds no UK trademarks on the register.
- Companies House
- 01786402 Active
- Incorporated
- January 1984
- Registered office
- Chertsey
- Business activity
- Dormant Company
- UK trademarks
- 0
What happened next
- Taylor Wessing noted the Court of Appeal's ruling addressed how intermediary liability applies to platforms hosting downloadable watch face apps.Source: Taylorwessing, February 2024
What others said about it
- Wolters Kluwer said the ruling's treatment of the e-Commerce Directive safe harbour marks a departure from how EU courts generally apply that defence.Source: Wolters Kluwer, May 2024
- Mishcon de Reya said app store operators would find the decision an unfavourable signal on how courts may treat their liability for third-party content.Source: Mishcon de Reya LLP, February 2024
- Wolters Kluwer summarised the case as Samsung allowing users to download infringing watch face apps from its Galaxy App Store, leading to the finding against it.Source: Wolters Kluwer, July 2024
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2023] EWCA Civ 1478 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
