How much responsibility does an app-store operator bear for what third-party developers put on its shelves? English courts gave a pointed answer in the long-running dispute between the Swatch group and Samsung — and it is one every platform business should keep in mind: run the store, and you may own the infringement on it.
In Montres Breguet S.A. v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, a group of luxury Swiss watch companies — among them Breguet, Blancpain, Omega, Longines, Tissot, Hamilton and Swatch itself — sued Samsung over digital watch-face apps that copied their distinctive designs and were downloadable to Samsung smartwatches through the Samsung Galaxy App Store. Although third-party developers built the apps, the claim targeted Samsung’s role in making them available.
What the case was about
The claimants alleged that, between October 2015 and February 2019, 23 of their trade marks were infringed by around 30 watch-face apps, which were downloaded roughly 160,000 times across the UK and EU. The High Court, in a judgment by Mrs Justice Falk, found Samsung liable — not because it had drawn the offending faces, but because of the part it played in presenting and distributing them to consumers.
Why Samsung was not a “neutral host”
The decisive point was control. Samsung was not treated as a passive conduit that merely stored files uploaded by others; the court found it exercised meaningful control over which apps appeared and how they reached users. That distinction is what moved the company from bystander to infringer. In practical terms, an operator’s review systems, app-approval processes, developer terms and takedown procedures can all become evidence of the degree of control it exercised — and therefore of its liability.
The Court of Appeal’s confirmation
Samsung appealed, and a Court of Appeal panel of Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Arnold and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing dismissed the challenge. Samsung had argued, among other things, that any use of the signs was by the developers rather than by Samsung, that the use did not relate to smartwatches, and that the hosting defence under the e-commerce rules protected it. The court was unpersuaded, leaving the finding of liability intact.
Why the hosting defence failed
The hosting defence in the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations shields a genuinely neutral, passive host from liability for what users store. Its limit is activity: once an operator takes an active role in selecting, curating or commercialising content, the protection falls away. The Swatch litigation is a clear illustration of that boundary — the more a store shapes what is offered and profits from it, the harder it is to disclaim what is sold there.
What it means for platform operators
For app stores, marketplaces and any business that approves and monetises third-party content, the ruling is a practical warning. It is no longer safe to assume that infringement is solely the developer’s problem. For in-house and IP counsel, the lesson is that the paper trail matters as much as the content: app-review files, developer controls and takedown records may prove as decisive in court as the infringing designs themselves. Building rights-clearance and rapid takedown into the store’s operations — and documenting them — is now part of managing platform liability.
