The Battle of the Square: Patek Philippe Cubitus vs. Cartier Santos – An Academic Exercise on Intellectual Property and Market Identity

When it comes to luxury watches, design is more than just aesthetics—it’s a brand’s signature, an unmistakable identity that sets it apart in a highly competitive industry. Among the most distinctive case shapes in horology, the square design stands out as a bold statement, diverging from the traditional round cases that dominate the market. 

While square watches are not new, they are relatively rare, making each one that enters the scene a topic of discussion. On a personal level, my favorite timepieces embodying this geometric elegance are the Cartier Santos and the newly introduced 2024 Patek Philippe Cubitus. Both watches embrace the square form, yet their histories, horological categories, target audiences and brand philosophies couldn’t be more different.

The Cartier Santos, first introduced in 1904, holds the distinction of being one of the earliest wristwatches ever created. Designed for aviator Alberto Santos-Dumont, it combined practicality with elegance, featuring a clean square case with rounded edges and exposed screws that have since become synonymous with the model. It is an enduring symbol of Cartier’s watchmaking legacy—one that has remained remarkably consistent for over a century. Whilst, the Patek Philippe Cubitus, a fresh entrant into the square-watch category, marks the brand’s first new collection in 25 years. Patek Philippe, founded in 1839, represents the pinnacle of Swiss horology, for its known hand finished movements and rare complications. The brand has long been associated with round and cushion-shaped watches, the new Cubitus takes a far departure from Patek’s tradition, presenting a modern interpretation of the square form while retaining the meticulous craftsmanship that defines it.

Given their visual similarities, I shall present my very own academic exercise, intended solely for the purpose of discussion rather than establishing a comparison between them. Having said that, does the Cubitus infringe on the iconic square design of the Santos, or is it simply a different expression of the square watch concept? This is a key issue in intellectual property (IP) law, where design protection plays a significant role in preventing imitation while allowing fair competition. The luxury watch industry thrives on heritage and exclusivity, and brands go to great lengths to safeguard their creations. However, IP law recognizes that certain functional and historical design choices—such as a square case—cannot be monopolized unless specific, protectable elements are involved.

When it comes to fine watchmaking, where every detail is meticulously crafted and fiercely protected, the debate over originality and influence is more relevant than ever. Allow me to dissect what makes these watches unique, and more importantly, where the legal boundaries of design protection are drawn.

Intellectual Property Considerations in Watch Design

The luxury watch industry is built on heritage, craftsmanship, and exclusivity. Beyond their intricate mechanics and fine materials, timepieces carry immense value through their design and brand identity—elements that watchmakers fiercely protect under IP law. In the case of Cartier’s Santos and Patek Philippe’s Cubitus, their square shape raises an important legal question: Can a geometric form alone be protected under IP law, or does true legal protection lie in the finer details?

Industrial Design Protection in Luxury Watchmaking

Luxury watch designs are not merely functional devices; they are aesthetic masterpieces that define brand identity and market differentiation. Moreover, they are intended to represent the refinement and sophistication of their clientele. The protection of these designs falls under industrial design rights, which safeguard the ornamental aspects of a product that are not dictated by function.

At the international level, treaties such as the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Deposit of Industrial Designs provide a streamlined mechanism for brands to register designs across multiple jurisdictions with a single application. This simplifies the process for watchmakers seeking IP protection in various markets, ensuring that their unique designs remain legally enforceable against imitation.

Furthermore, courts have increasingly recognized the artistic and cultural value of luxury watch designs, strengthening their legal standing as protected works of intellectual property rather than just commercial products. This reinforces the importance of early registration and proactive enforcement strategies to prevent infringement and unauthorized reproductions.

Copyright, Trademarks, and Design Patents

Luxury watches can benefit from multiple layers of IP protection, each serving a specific purpose. Copyright, for example, protects original artistic works, but it rarely applies to watch designs unless the piece is considered an artistic sculpture rather than a functional object. Design patents, on the other hand, provide stronger protection for unique visual elements of a product—such as a bezel design, dial layout, or case engraving—granting the patent holder exclusive rights for a set period. This ensures that competitors cannot reproduce identical or deceptively similar designs.

More commonly, watchmakers rely on trademarks and trade dress protection. A trademark safeguards logos, brand names, and signature visual elements that serve as identifiers of the watch’s origin. For instance, Cartier’s Roman numeral dials and visible bezel screws have become instantly recognizable features of the Santos, making them prime candidates for trademark protection. Similarly, Patek Philippe’s signature hobnail pattern on bezels and its distinctive typography on dials are legally reinforced as brand identifiers.

The Functional vs. Aesthetic Divide

One of the biggest legal challenges in watch design protection is distinguishing between functional and aesthetic elements. IP law does not grant protection to purely functional aspects of a product, meaning that common case shapes—round, square, or tonneau—are generally considered industry standards rather than proprietary designs. If a shape is dictated by function rather than creativity, courts are unlikely to grant exclusive ownership over it.

For example, Cartier’s square-shaped Santos is undoubtedly iconic, but the square case alone is not a legally protectable design feature. Square watches have existed for over a century, with brands like TAG Heuer (Monaco) and Bell & Ross (Instrument series) also embracing the format. Because of this, Patek Philippe’s Cubitus is not automatically infringing on Cartier’s rights simply by being a square watch. Instead, what could be legally challenged is whether the Cubitus copies specific non-functional elements of the Santos—such as bezel screws, dial design, or case proportions—to an extent that causes consumer confusion (trade-dress).

Trade-Dress in the Luxury Industry

A powerful legal tool in the watch industry is trade-dress, which extends trademark protection beyond just logos and brand names to the overall look and feel of a product. In the luxury sector, trade-dress is used to prevent competitors from creating products that imitate the distinctive visual identity of a brand, even if they don’t copy a specific trademarked feature.

For instance, if Patek Philippe’s Cubitus had replicated the bezel screws, Roman numerals, or signature dial layout of the Cartier Santos, Cartier could argue that the design creates consumer confusion and dilutes the Santos brand’s distinctiveness. However, because Patek Philippe’s execution of the square case is immaculate for it maintains its distinct brand language, it avoids direct infringement. The Cubitus is marketed as an exclusive high-end timepiece with Patek Philippe’s own dial aesthetics, case finishing, and movement architecture, reinforcing that it is a separate entity rather than a derivative work.

Where IP Law Draws the Line?

The legal distinction between homage and infringement in watch design often comes down to how much a new model relies on a pre-existing aesthetic without adding its own identity. General design trends—like case shapes—belong to the industry at large, whereas specific details and brand-defining elements can be protected. In the case of Cartier’s Santos and Patek Philippe’s Cubitus, their similarities are surface-level, but the deeper brand-specific details distinguish them from a legal standpoint. 

For watch brands looking to safeguard their designs, trademarks, trade dress, and design patents remain the most effective tools in a legal arsenal—ensuring that timepieces remain both exclusive and legally protected, without stifling industry-wide creativity.

Heritage and Design: Defining the Cartier Santos and Patek Philippe Cubitus  

Watch design is about more than just aesthetics—it’s a reflection of heritage, innovation, and brand identity. While both the Cartier Santos and the Patek Philippe Cubitus share a square case design, they come from vastly different backgrounds and serve different purposes in the horological landscape. Understanding the historical significance and design philosophy behind each watch is key to recognizing why these two timepieces, despite their apparent similarities, are distinct in both execution and intent.  

The Cartier Santos (1904): A Pioneer in Wristwatches  

The Cartier Santos is one of the earliest wristwatches ever created, designed by Louis Cartier in 1904 for aviator Alberto Santos-Dumont, who needed a timepiece he could check mid-flight without taking his hands off the controls. This pioneering creation helped transition wristwatches from a niche accessory into a staple of modern horology.  

Key elements of the Santos include:  

- A square case with rounded edges, an innovative departure from the pocket watches of its time.  

- Exposed Art-Deco screws on the bezel, an industrial design feature that has remained part of the Santos DNA for over a century.  

- A minimalist yet refined dial, often featuring Roman numerals and Cartier’s signature railroad minute track.  

Over a century, the Santos evolved into multiple iterations—automatic models, chronographs, and even skeletonized versions—yet it has always retained its iconic case shape and bezel screws, which remain among its most recognizable traits. The Santos is not just a watch; it is a piece of historical innovation, merging aviation heritage with fine watchmaking. Refinement and history at its best.

The Patek Philippe Cubitus (2024): A Bold New Direction  

In contrast, the Patek Philippe Cubitus, launched in 2024, is a contemporary addition to the Swiss watchmaker’s portfolio—marking the brand’s first square-cased collection in 25 years. While Patek Philippe is synonymous with timeless elegance and intricate complications, the Cubitus signals a bold shift towards a younger, more design-forward audience without straying from the brand’s ethos of exclusivity and craftsmanship.  

Key elements of the Cubitus design include:  

• A square case with subtly curved lugs, giving it a distinct ergonomic profile. 

• A finely textured dial with guilloché patterns, reinforcing Patek Philippe’s reputation for decorative craftsmanship.  

• No visible screws on the bezel, differentiating it from the Santos and maintaining the Cubitus' own unique character.  

• Mechanical excellence, with an in-house movement featuring innovations in precision and finishing that align with Patek Philippe’s standards.  

Rather than drawing from aviation heritage like the Santos, the Cubitus embodies a modern reinterpretation of classic geometric watchmaking, aligning with the contemporary luxury market.  

Why the Two Are Not the Same? A complicated approach?

My confident 6-year old son, Simon, claimed there was no relevant difference between the Patek and the Santos whilst both been very “fragile”. At the same time, Lucho, my 9-year Hot-Wheels hand painter creative son, said there was merely a vague resemblance between both “grown-up intended” timepieces. Initially, both statements put my perspective open to question, provided I am aware of Cartier and Patek’s brands heritage, design language, and market positioning make them entirely different timepieces. So, let me draw the line between simple and competent.

• Aesthetic Distinction: The Santos features exposed bezel screws, Roman numerals, and an aviation-inspired history, while the Cubitus leans on Patek Philippe’s craftsmanship, textured dials, and smooth bezel design.  

• Historical Context: The Santos is an enduring icon of 20th-century watchmaking, while the Cubitus is a modern creation meant to expand Patek Philippe’s clientele range.  

• Brand Identity: Cartier is known for elegance and classic design, while Patek Philippe operates in the realm of high horology, ensuring that even their square watches reflect their tradition of fine Swiss watchmaking.  

Thus, while both watches challenge the conventional round watch case, they do not compete in the same category. The Santos remains a historical legend, while the Cubitus is somehow intended to carve its own space as a modern statement piece.

Legal Justifications for the Lack of Infringement  

The Cartier Santos and Patek Philippe Cubitus may both feature square cases, but from a legal perspective, their design elements, historical context, and brand positioning prevent any claims of intellectual property (IP) infringement. In the watchmaking industry, legal protections for designs primarily rely on trademark law, trade dress protection, and design patents—but these protections have clear limitations. Below, we explore the key legal principles that establish why the Cubitus does not infringe on the Santos’ design.  

Distinctive Brand Signatures: Why the Watches Are Clearly Different?

In IP disputes, courts and trademark offices look at whether a product’s design features are distinctive enough to qualify for protection. The Santos and Cubitus share a broad geometric similarity (a square case), but their above mentioned signature design elements make them unmistakably different.  

From a trade dress perspective, these differences in design language ensure that no reasonable consumer would mistake the Cubitus for a Cartier Santos or believe that Patek Philippe copied Cartier’s design. The overall aesthetic identity of each watch remains distinct within its brand’s heritage.  

The Functionality Doctrine: Why Case Shape Alone Cannot Be Monopolized?  

One of the core principles in IP law—especially in trademark and design patent protection—is the functionality doctrine. This principle dictates that functional elements of a product cannot be exclusively owned by a single brand. Shapes are fundamental to watchmaking and cannot be monopolized, no watchmaker can claim exclusive rights over a square case alone. Courts have consistently ruled that basic shapes do not qualify for IP protection unless paired with uniquely recognizable elements, such as Cartier’s screw bezel design, which the Cubitus lacks.  

Trade Dress Protection and Consumer Confusion: Why the Market Distinguishes the Two Watches?

Trade dress law protects a product’s overall appearance if it serves as a source identifier for consumers. However, for a successful trade dress claim, the following must be proven:  

1. The design is inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning. 

2. The new design causes consumer confusion, leading people to believe it comes from the original brand.  

In this case:  

• Cartier’s Santos has distinct features that have acquired secondary meaning, such as the bezel screws, numerals, and dial layout.  

• The Cubitus does not use these design cues, preventing any risk of confusion. 

• Both brands operate in different price segments, with Cartier’s Santos appealing to a broader audience and Patek Philippe’s Cubitus targeting those who seek exclusivity and haute horology.  

There is no plausible scenario where a well-rounded watch buyer would mistake a Cubitus for a Santos, nor would they assume Patek Philippe is copying Cartier’s aesthetic. This eliminates the foundation for any legal dispute based on trade dress infringement.  

Why There’s No Infringement?

Given the distinct brand identities, unique design features, and lack of consumer confusion, the Patek Philippe Cubitus does not infringe on the Cartier Santos from a legal standpoint.  

• Cartier’s IP protection focuses on the Santos’ bezel screws, numerals, and dial layout—not the general square shape.  

• Patek Philippe’s Cubitus has a different execution in terms of craftsmanship, finishing, and market positioning.  

• The functionality doctrine prevents Cartier from claiming exclusivity over a square case design.  

Ultimately, while both watches celebrate geometric elegance, each stand as an independent design, legally and stylistically distinct.

Market Positioning and Pricing Differences  

The Cartier Santos and Patek Philippe Cubitus may share a square case design, but their market positioning, pricing, and brand philosophy set them apart in ways that further eliminate any legal concerns over IP infringement. While Cartier’s Santos is a luxury staple with broad appeal, Patek Philippe’s Cubitus is a high-end piece, designed for an limited audience. These differences in pricing and market segmentation play a critical role in distinguishing the two watches from both a branding and legal standpoint.  

Cartier Santos: A Luxury Icon for a Broad Audience (entry to mid-level)

The Cartier Santos has remained one of Cartier’s most recognizable watches since its inception in 1904. It is marketed as:  

• A timeless and luxury timepiece.  

• A watch that blends historical significance with modern elegance.  

• A versatile choice for professionals, watch enthusiasts, and first-time luxury buyers.  

Cartier positions the Santos as an entry-to-mid-level luxury watch, offering different variations that range from approximately $7,000 to $30,000, depending on materials and complications. The pricing structure makes it attainable for a wider audience, allowing Cartier to maintain a strong presence in the everyday luxury market.  

Patek Philippe Cubitus: Exclusivity and High-End Craftsmanship  (collector’s level)

• Patek Philippe operates in a completely different segment of the luxury market. The Cubitus collection, launched in 2024, reflects Patek Philippe’s ethos of exclusivity, innovation, and craftsmanship.     

• A niche collector’s appeal, rather than a mass-market luxury presence.  

• A focus on horological excellence, including complex mechanical movements and high-end finishing.  

• A retail level pricing range of $41,240 to $80,380, placing it firmly in the ultra-luxury market.  Not considering an outrageous aftermarket increase.

Unlike the Santos, the Cubitus is not a mainstream luxury watch but rather a high-end investment piece that appeals to seasoned collectors rather than general luxury consumers.  

The Cubitus is a larger, squared off re-imagining of the Nautilus, which is one of Patek Philippe’s most iconic timepieces. Introduced in 1976, the Nautilus’ design was based on a ship’s porthole and features distinct characteristics featuring a rounded octagonal case, integrated bracelet and lateral lobes. The Cubitus retains all the characteristic design elements of the Nautilus but is now much more sharply angled and straight edged. 

The fact that the Cubitus is descended from a very significant design lineage will protect it from IP claims. 

Cartier’s most distinguished collections consist of rectangular watches, whereas Patek has dabbled with square watches over the decades but never truly stuck to the formula.

Why Market Segmentation Matters in IP Law?

In trademark and trade dress disputes, one of the key legal tests for consumer confusion is whether a reasonable buyer would mistakenly associate one product with another. When two products occupy different market segments and price points, the likelihood of confusion is significantly reduced.  

• Different buyer demographics: Cartier’s Santos buyers are more likely to be general luxury consumers, whereas Patek Philippe’s Cubitus caters to collectors and high-net-worth individuals.  

• Distinct branding strategies: Cartier markets the Santos as a historically significant, stylish watch, while Patek Philippe emphasizes the Cubitus' exclusivity and craftsmanship.  

• Limited cross-shopping behavior: A customer considering a Patek Philippe will never confuse it with a Cartier, as these brands operate in different price brackets and prestige levels.  

Since IP law is based on consumer perception, the lack of direct competition and clear brand differentiation between the Santos and Cubitus further supports the argument that there is no infringement or dilution of Cartier’s design identity.  

My Legal Perspective: How A Brand’s Identity Prevents Confusion?

• Cartier’s Santos is positioned as a broadly accessible luxury watch, while Patek Philippe’s Cubitus is a high-end collector’s piece—eliminating overlap in consumer markets. 

• Luxury brands are legally protected based on their brand identity, not just product design. Even with a shared square case, the pricing, marketing, and exclusivity levels ensure that there is no risk of brand confusion.  

• Legal disputes around IP infringement often arise when a lower-end brand attempts to imitate a higher-end one. In this case, Patek Philippe—being positioned at the pinnacle of the industry—has no incentive to imitate Cartier, further reducing any legal concerns.  

From a legal and market perspective, these watches operate in distinct realms of the luxury industry, reinforcing that Patek Philippe’s Cubitus does not infringe upon Cartier’s Santos.

The Role of Consumer Perception  

IP disputes often hinge on whether a reasonable consumer might confuse two products. In the case of the Cartier Santos and Patek Philippe Cubitus, this confusion is highly unlikely due to:  

• Brand prestige and positioning: Cartier and Patek Philippe operate in distinct luxury segments, catering to different buyer demographics.

• Recognizable design cues: Cartier’s Santos is instantly identifiable thanks to its visible screws, Roman numerals, and bezel shape. Patek Philippe’s Cubitus incorporates entirely different dial layouts, not observable movement complications, and case finishing.  

• The collector’s market: Luxury watch buyers are highly discerning, and those purchasing a Cubitus for over $120,000 will certainly be most likely outraged by this academic exercise.

With decades of legal precedent supporting the idea that general case shapes cannot be monopolized, Patek Philippe’s decision to introduce the Cubitus does not violate any legal restrictions or precedents in watch IP law.  

Cartier’s IP Strategy and Legal Boundaries  

Cartier is a brand that values its design heritage and has taken significant steps to protect its creations. However, the company is well aware of the limits of intellectual property law and has strategically focused on safeguarding specific, unique elements of the Santos rather than attempting to monopolize the square watch design itself.  

What Elements Are Truly Protected?  

Cartier’s IP protections focus primarily on distinctive aesthetic details, rather than basic case shapes. Key elements that Cartier has successfully defended include:  

• The exposed screws on the bezel: A signature design feature that helps distinguish the Santos from other square watches.  

• The Roman numeral dial with a square inner track: A design element that reinforces Cartier’s classical aesthetic.  

• The integration of the bracelet with the case: Modern Santos models emphasize a seamless transition between the bracelet and case, which has become a recognizable feature.  

While these design aspects are protected, the square case alone is not exclusive to Cartier, and the Cubitus avoids incorporating any of these signature Cartier features.  

Cartier’s Approach to Protecting the Santos  

Cartier has a history of legally defending its designs while respecting the industry’s long-standing norms. Instead of attempting to own the concept of a square case, Cartier has relied on:  

• Trademarking the Santos’ specific visual elements (such as its screw placement and Roman numeral dial).  

• Vigorously enforcing brand authenticity against counterfeits and close replicas. 

• Leveraging brand heritage rather than legal claims to maintain market dominance.  

By focusing on preserving unique brand identity rather than policing generic design choices, Cartier has ensured that the Santos remains distinctive while allowing other brands to create square watches without legal challenges.       

Why Patek Philippe’s Approach Is Legally Sound?

Patek Philippe’s Cubitus collection maintains originality within the framework of luxury watchmaking. It does not attempt to replicate any of Cartier’s protected elements, making it legally sound in several key ways:  

• No use of exposed screws on the bezel: One of the Santos’ defining features is absent from the Cubitus, reinforcing its unique identity.  

• Dial design and typography differ significantly: Patek Philippe employs its signature dial layouts and hand styles, which have no resemblance to Cartier’s. 

• Distinct finishing techniques and complications: The Cubitus showcases Patek Philippe’s high-end horology expertise, differentiating it from the more fashion-forward appeal of the Santos.       

• Since the Cubitus presents an entirely different execution of a square watch, it does not violate any IP laws, dilute the Cartier brand, or create confusion among buyers.  

Final Legal Analysis: Why There Is No Infringement?

1. Square cases are a longstanding feature in the watch industry. Cartier does not own the rights to square watches, nor does any other brand. 

2. Cartier’s IP strategy focuses on specific design elements, such as the bezel screws and Roman numerals—none of which appear on the Patek Philippe Cubitus.  

3. Luxury consumers are highly discerning, making it unlikely that a Patek Philippe buyer would ever mistake the Cubitus for a Cartier Santos.  

4. Legal precedent in the watch industry shows that only highly unique, decorative elements—not general case shapes—are protected under IP laws.  

Through distinct branding, craftsmanship, and heritage, both the Cartier Santos and Patek Philippe Cubitus exist as independent creations, with no legal overlap that would constitute IP infringement. Collectors can appreciate both for what they are—two square icons, each with a legacy of its own.

Icons, Identities and IP

This article, besides highlighting a passion for watches, was intended to enlighten on how luxury watch brands continue to innovate while respecting intellectual property laws. Square watches have been a part of horological history for over a century, and no single brand can claim ownership of a fundamental shape. Instead, the protection lies in the artistry, execution, and branding choices that make each watch unique. The real power of a luxury timepiece does not stem from legal monopolies on shapes or materials but rather from the legacy and perception that a brand builds over time.  

So, what truly defines a watch’s identity? Is legal protection as important as a brand’s heritage? In a market driven by prestige, exclusivity, and collector demand, it seems that the answer is clear: while intellectual property laws should help protect brand integrity against counterfeits, it is the deep-rooted history and design evolution that ultimately cement a timepiece’s status as an icon.

The future of luxury watchmaking depends on a robust legal framework that protects brand integrity, prevents infringement, and ultimately preserves the artistry and exclusivity that define the world’s most prestigious timepieces.

Sebastián Jiménez M. LL.M.

COLBS Estudio Legal

Partner