Samsung Electronics is facing a lawsuit from Spanish watchmaker Festina seeking more than 3.6 billion Czech koruna (approximately $155 million) for the alleged copyright infringement of watch face designs used in the Galaxy Watch series. The claim, filed in the Czech Republic, asserts that Samsung utilized Festina’s proprietary analog watch aesthetics without authorization for its digital interfaces.
The legal action centers on the intersection of traditional horology and wearable technology. Festina alleges that Samsung systematically copied the visual identity, layout, and specific design elements of its physical luxury watches to create a variety of digital watch faces. According to court filings, the plaintiff argues that these designs are protected intellectual property and that Samsung’s unauthorized reproduction constitutes a significant breach of copyright law.
The dispute highlights an increasing tension between legacy luxury brands and technology giants as the smartwatch market expands. By replicating the look of high-end analog watches, tech companies can offer users a “luxury” aesthetic without the cost of physical materials, a practice that traditional watchmakers argue erodes the value of their original designs and trademarks.
How Much is Festina Seeking in the Samsung Lawsuit?
The financial demand in the lawsuit totals 3.6 billion Czech koruna, a figure that reflects both estimated lost licensing revenue and damages for the alleged unauthorized use of the designs. This amount, which converts to roughly $155 million based on current exchange rates, represents one of the more significant intellectual property claims brought against Samsung’s wearable division in the European region.
Legal representatives for Festina claim that the scale of the infringement is tied to the global distribution of the Galaxy Watch. Because Samsung sells millions of units worldwide, the plaintiff argues that the proliferation of the copied designs has caused widespread market dilution. The demand for Festina‘s intellectual property rights is based on the premise that the specific arrangement of dials, markers, and hands constitutes a unique artistic work protected under copyright law.
The choice of the Czech Republic as the venue for the filing is strategic, as the company maintains significant operations and distribution networks within the region. The court must now determine if the digital representations of the watch faces are “substantially similar” to the physical prototypes produced by the Spanish firm.
What Designs Were Allegedly Copied?
The lawsuit focuses on the “watch faces”—the digital skins that users can customize on their Samsung Galaxy Watch—rather than the hardware of the device itself. Festina alleges that Samsung created digital replicas of specific analog models, mimicking the precise geometry, color schemes, and placement of indices that define Festina’s brand identity.
In traditional watchmaking, the “face” or dial is often the most distinctive part of a timepiece. Festina argues that its designers spent years developing a specific aesthetic language that Samsung simply transposed into a digital format. The plaintiff contends that this was not a case of general inspiration but a direct reproduction of proprietary assets.
This type of infringement falls under the category of “trade dress” or copyright, depending on the jurisdiction. While a circle with hands is a generic concept, the specific combination of fonts, sub-dial placements, and decorative elements can be protected. Festina asserts that the Galaxy Watch faces in question are indistinguishable from their analog counterparts in a way that misleads consumers or unfairly profits from Festina’s established reputation.
The Conflict Between Analog Design and Digital Interfaces
The case underscores a broader industry struggle regarding how intellectual property laws apply to “digital twins.” As smartwatches move toward mimicking the luxury feel of Swiss and Spanish watches, the line between a “tribute” and a “copy” becomes blurred. Many smartwatch manufacturers offer “classic” faces that look like luxury watches, often using generic styles that avoid specific trademarks.
However, Festina’s claim is more specific, targeting the replication of actual existing models. If the court finds in favor of Festina, it could set a precedent that forces tech companies to license digital versions of analog designs. This would fundamentally change the business model for smartwatch “face stores,” where thousands of third-party designers currently upload skins that often resemble high-end brands.
The impact extends beyond a single lawsuit. If a court rules that the aesthetic arrangement of a watch dial is a copyrightable work of art, other luxury brands like Rolex, Omega, or Patek Philippe may be more inclined to pursue similar actions against tech firms that offer “luxury-style” digital interfaces.
Legal Precedents for Design Infringement in Wearables
Samsung has a long history of intellectual property litigation, most notably its decade-long battle with Apple over smartphone design and utility patents. Those cases focused largely on hardware—such as rounded corners and “slide-to-unlock” features. The Festina case is distinct because it focuses on the software-driven aesthetic of the user interface.
European courts have historically been protective of “industrial design” and “copyrighted works of applied art.” Under EU law, a design can be protected if it is original and possesses a distinct character. The core of the legal battle will be whether a watch face—something fundamentally functional—can be considered an “artistic work” sufficient to trigger copyright protection.
Previous rulings in the EU have shown that while functional elements cannot be copyrighted, the “arbitrary” aesthetic choices made by a designer can be. Festina will need to prove that the elements Samsung copied were not dictated by the function of telling time, but were instead creative choices unique to the Festina brand.
Samsung’s Legal Position and Potential Response
Samsung has not released a detailed public rebuttal to the specific 3.6 billion CZK claim, but the company typically defends such cases by arguing that the designs in question are “generic” or “commonplace” within the industry. In similar past disputes, Samsung has argued that basic geometric shapes and standard layouts for timekeeping are not eligible for exclusive ownership.
The company is likely to argue that the digital watch faces are transformative works—meaning they take an inspiration and adapt it for a completely different medium (a screen versus a physical dial). Samsung may also point to the fact that digital watch faces are often created by third-party developers through an open API, potentially shifting some liability away from the hardware manufacturer and toward the software creators.
If Samsung chooses to settle, it would likely involve a licensing agreement where the tech giant pays a royalty for the use of the designs. However, given the high valuation of the claim, a settlement would require an agreement on how “damages” are calculated for digital assets that are often provided to the consumer for free as part of the device’s software package.
The case now moves toward the evidentiary phase, where the court will examine the specific designs side-by-side to determine the degree of similarity. The next confirmed checkpoint in the legal process will be the court’s decision on whether to admit the evidence provided by Festina and the scheduling of the first formal hearing to determine the validity of the copyright claims.
Do you think digital watch faces should be protected by the same copyright laws as physical luxury watches? Share your thoughts in the comments below.