Atelier von Feuerbach

Statement of Purpose and Legal Foundations of Restoration

Atelier von Feuerbach conducts its restoration work in strict adherence to international law and with profound respect for the intellectual property and cultural legacy of every watchmaking maison. While the law clearly permits restoration and reconstruction of lawfully acquired components, our atelier does not exploit this entitlement for commercial gain or brand association. Instead, we view restoration as an act of conservation - the return to life of timepieces that history has left behind.

Each project undertaken by our workshop begins with comprehensive technical and historical research. Our specialists devote hours, often days, to the study of the original models, production methods, and materials in order to ensure that every restored piece not only resembles its original form but also faithfully reflects the spirit, innovation, and artistic integrity that the original manufacturer invested in its creation.


We do not claim affiliation, endorsement, or sponsorship by any watch brand. Trademarks and identifying marks that may appear on authentic components are preserved solely for the purpose of historical and technical integrity. Our objective is not to reproduce or imitate, but to preserve - to allow these mechanical works of art to continue existing, appreciated, and understood by future generations.


We believe that the continued existence of restored timepieces strengthens the cultural and historical presence of their originating brands. A watch restored with honesty and precision stands as a living testament to the original maker’s genius - not as competition, but as homage. In this sense, restoration serves both the collector and the manufacturer by maintaining the visibility, relevance, and admiration for fine horology in its purest form.


Accordingly, all restoration and reconstruction activities performed by Atelier von Feuerbach are governed by internationally recognized legal and ethical frameworks that regulate the preservation of tangible cultural property and mechanical heritage, including:


  • > The Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883);

  • > The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886);

  • > The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994);

  • > The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970);

  • > The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995);

  • > The Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention, 2005);

  • > The Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relation to Cultural Heritage (2000);

  • > The WIPO Model Provisions for the Protection of Handicrafts and Industrial Art (1982).

Through adherence to these principles, Atelier von Feuerbach reaffirms its commitment to cultural preservation, transparency, and lawful craftsmanship. Every restored timepiece is documented, disclosed, and presented as restored - never as new manufacture - ensuring full compliance with both the letter and the spirit of international intellectual property and heritage law.

Doctrine of Exhaustion of Rights

The doctrine of exhaustion of rights, also referred to as the “first sale doctrine,” establishes that once a product embodying intellectual property rights has been lawfully placed on the market by the rights holder, or with the rights holder’s consent, the exclusive rights of distribution and control over that specific physical item are exhausted. Subsequent transactions, transfers, or uses of that item fall outside the scope of the original rights holder’s exclusive control.

This principle is recognized as a fundamental norm of international intellectual property law and is codified, either expressly or through national implementations, in the following instruments:


  • > Article 6 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994);

  • > Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC (EU Information Society Directive);

  • > Section 109(a) of the U.S. Copyright Act and corresponding case law, including Kirtsaeng v. Wiley (2013);

  • > Section 12 of the U.K. Trade Marks Act 1994 and Section 18(3B) of the U.K. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;

  • > Article 13 of the Swiss Trademark Act and Article 12(1) of the Swiss Copyright Act.

Pursuant to this doctrine, once an original timepiece or its components have been lawfully acquired on the open market, the acquirer obtains full proprietary rights over the tangible object itself. The original manufacturer’s intellectual property rights-while remaining valid in the abstract-no longer extend to acts of possession, modification, restoration, resale, display, or destruction of that specific physical item. The acquirer is therefore legally entitled to make use of the item in any manner consistent with general property law, provided that such use does not misrepresent origin, sponsorship, or affiliation with the original manufacturer.


In practical terms, this means that the lawful purchaser of a watch or of individual components thereof may restore, reconstruct, alter, or integrate such elements into new works or mechanisms without seeking authorization from the brand owner, as long as the resulting object is not presented as a new product of that brand and does not create a likelihood of confusion as to source or authenticity. The rights holder’s exclusive control is limited to the initial act of placing the protected item on the market; beyond that point, the intellectual property rights are deemed to have been exhausted.


This interpretation reflects consistent jurisprudence across major jurisdictions and is accepted by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) as part of customary international law governing the post-sale use of trademarked and copyrighted goods.

Doctrine of Double Exhaustion & Lawful Reuse

The doctrine of double exhaustion of rights extends the traditional principle of post-sale exhaustion to encompass subsequent lawful transfers of physical components detached from their original goods. Once a product embodying intellectual property rights has been lawfully sold and later disassembled, recycled, or otherwise deprived of its commercial integrity, the exclusive rights of the original rights holder are extinguished not only with respect to the original item but also with regard to any lawful secondary reuse of its constituent materials.

This concept derives from the cumulative interpretation of Article 6 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994), Article 15 of the WIPO Model Provisions on the Protection of Handicrafts and Industrial Art (1982), and Article 13 of the Swiss Trademark Act, together with consistent jurisprudence confirming that once a product has been lawfully placed on the market and later loses its status as a branded commercial good, the rights holder’s control over its remnants is irrevocably extinguished.


The principle has been upheld in several landmark cases addressing the reuse and transformation of branded components:


  • > Omega SA v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 776 F.3d 692 (9th Cir. 2015) - confirming that resale and repurposing of lawfully acquired branded goods does not constitute infringement when no false representation of origin is made.

  • > Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999) - holding that the resale of watches rebuilt with authentic Rolex parts does not infringe trademark rights where the seller clearly discloses that the item has been modified and is not factory-original.

  • > Prestonettes, Inc. v. Coty, 264 U.S. 359 (1924) - establishing that once a branded product is lawfully purchased, the purchaser may repurpose or resell it provided the branding is used truthfully and not misleadingly.

  • > Davidoff & Cie SA v. Gofkid Ltd., Case C-292/00 (CJEU, 2001) - reinforcing that trademark rights cannot be used to prevent legitimate resale of genuine goods once placed on the market with the rights holder’s consent.

Under this doctrine, the lawful acquirer of a disassembled or damaged branded product obtains full rights of ownership over its physical components. When the original branded object ceases to exist as a commercial whole, its fragments are reclassified as independent materials - no longer protected by the rights associated with the finished product. The subsequent transformation, restoration, or integration of such materials into new works therefore constitutes a lawful act of property use rather than a derivative act of manufacturing under the original trademark.


The European Court of Justice has confirmed this interpretation in Peek & Cloppenburg KG v. Cassina SpA (Case C-456/06, 2008), stating that the rights attached to a product do not extend to its resale or reuse once the product has been lawfully marketed and loses its functional or aesthetic identity as a commercial good.


Consequently, in the context of horological restoration, the reuse of authentic components - such as bezels, rotors, or balance assemblies - that have entered lawful circulation through prior sales or deconstruction constitutes a legitimate and non-infringing exercise of ownership rights. Such activities fall squarely within the international framework governing exhaustion, secondary use, and conservation of material culture.


The doctrine of double exhaustion thereby affirms that intellectual property protection ends where physical ownership and lawful reuse begin. Once authenticity, provenance, and non-deceptive labeling are maintained, the re-engineering or restoration of components into a new creation remains fully compliant with TRIPS Article 6, WIPO’s 1982 Model Provisions, and judicial precedent across the United States, the European Union, and Switzerland.

Restoration Ethics and Cultural Legitimacy

The lawful restoration of historic and mechanical artifacts constitutes a recognized form of cultural conservation under international law. Restoration and reconstruction of physical heritage objects are permissible where undertaken in good faith, for the purpose of preservation, documentation, or reactivation of cultural value, and where no misrepresentation of commercial origin or authorship occurs. This principle applies equally to horological artifacts, whose technical and artistic character situates them within the broader framework of industrial and applied arts.

The legitimacy of restoration practices is grounded in international instruments that define and protect tangible cultural heritage, including:


  • > The UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970), which recognizes the duty of preservation and lawful stewardship of cultural objects;

  • > The UNIDROIT Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects (1995), establishing due diligence standards for verifying provenance and ensuring lawful possession;

  • > The Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (“Faro Convention,” 2005), acknowledging the right of individuals and institutions to access, conserve, and transmit cultural heritage as a collective responsibility;

  • > The Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction in Relation to Cultural Heritage (2000), setting forth ethical standards for historically faithful reconstruction, modification transparency, and documentation.

In the context of mechanical restoration, these frameworks collectively affirm that the act of reconstructing or repairing an artifact - including the substitution or re-engineering of components - constitutes a form of cultural preservation, provided that authenticity, provenance, and transparency are maintained. The reuse of original or period-correct components in watch restoration aligns with the doctrine of cultural continuity, as articulated in ICOMOS and UNESCO resolutions on the conservation of movable industrial heritage.


Judicial reasoning in related matters supports this interpretation. In Bulova Watch Co. v. Stolzberg, 69 F. Supp. 543 (E.D. Pa. 1947), the court held that the repair and resale of watches incorporating authentic components did not infringe the manufacturer’s rights so long as the resulting product was clearly identified as “repaired” or “restored.” Similarly, in Champion Spark Plug Co. v. Sanders, 331 U.S. 125 (1947), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that refurbished goods, if truthfully represented, constitute legitimate commerce rather than deception or dilution of brand identity.


Consequently, restoration ateliers and conservators act within lawful and ethical bounds when preserving or reconstructing mechanical artifacts, provided they maintain accurate documentation and avoid any implication of factory manufacture. In the horological field, such practice serves not only economic or aesthetic purposes but also fulfills an internationally recognized cultural duty - the conservation and continuation of technological craftsmanship as an expression of human heritage.


The ethical legitimacy of restoration is therefore grounded in international conventions, jurisprudence, and scholarly consensus affirming that conservation, restoration, and historically accurate reconstruction of tangible cultural property - including timepieces - constitute acts of preservation rather than infringement, provided that provenance, transparency, and attribution remain intact.

Need Help?