Yoko Ono is the owner of the watch that was given to John Lennon two months before the Beatles founder’s assassination. The Federal Court rejects a collector’s appeal against the decision made by the Geneva courts in 2023. The man found the object in Germany 10 years ago.
As for the 2nd Court of Civil Law, it is not disputed that Yoko Ono inherited the watch after the death of her husband on December 8, 1980. The Geneva courts arbitrarily found that her former driver later stole it. There is no evidence that the Japanese artist would have offered such a personal object to the latter.
Since the watch was stolen, the Appellant has not been able to legally own it. According to the German law applicable in the matter, the good faith of the buyer has no role in the origin of the thing, states the Federal Court in its judgment.
Engraving on the back
The watch, a Patek Philippe with complications (chronograph and moon phases, in particular), was bought in New York in 1980. The inscription “(JUST like) STARTING OVER LOVE YOKO 10-9″ was engraved on the back – Yoko Ono . 1980 NYC”. She gave this gold watch to John Lennon on October 9, 1980 for his 40th birthday.
After the assassination, the watch, listed in the musician’s estate, was kept in Yoko Ono’s apartment. Later, it passed into the hands of a man who was a Japanese driver between 1995 and 2005, the federal court said.
The Patek Philippe was then handed over to a German auction house by another owner. This is where the appellant bought it in 2014. He entrusted it to an auction house in Geneva that same year to get an estimate.
Yoko Ono, who was informed of the gift’s presence in Geneva, did not know that it was no longer in her possession. When the collector filed an action to establish ownership, the artist objected. The Court of First Instance and then the Court of Justice of the Canton of Geneva found that Yoko Ono was the sole legitimate owner of the watch. (judgment 5A_520/2023 of 13 September 2024)
answer/ther
What are the key legal principles involved in disputes over inherited personal items like art and cultural artifacts?
Interview Segment: Time.news Editor with Expert on Art and Cultural Heritage Law
Editor: Welcome to Time.news, where we discuss the latest in culture, law, and history. Today, we’re joined by Dr. Sara Hanson, an expert in art and cultural heritage law. We’re diving into a fascinating case involving Yoko Ono and a watch that once belonged to John Lennon. Dr. Hanson, thank you for joining us!
Dr. Hanson: Thank you for having me! It’s a pleasure to be here and discuss such a significant piece of music history.
Editor: Let’s get started with the recent court ruling. Can you give us some insights into the legal battle surrounding the watch?
Dr. Hanson: Certainly! The case revolves around a watch that was gifted to John Lennon just two months before his tragic assassination. After Lennon’s death, Yoko Ono inherited the watch. Recently, a collector who found it in Germany ten years ago appealed against the Geneva court’s ruling. The court upheld Ono’s ownership, reinforcing her rightful claim.
Editor: It’s interesting how ownership of personal items can become so contentious. How did the courts determine that Yoko Ono was the rightful owner despite the collector’s claim?
Dr. Hanson: The court decision was based on the principle of inheritance. It’s well established that Ono, as Lennon’s spouse, inherited the watch upon his death in 1980. The Geneva courts ruled that the watch was already acknowledged as stolen by Lennon’s former driver, indicating that the collector did not have legitimate ownership, despite finding it.
Editor: So, the former driver played a crucial role in this case. How does that impact the view on stolen cultural items?
Dr. Hanson: Absolutely, it emphasizes the complexities of provenance in cultural heritage law. Items can traverse borders and ownership claims can become murky. In this situation, the former driver’s actions added layers to what we define as ownership, theft, and rightful inheritance. This case serves as a reminder of the need for clear documentation and provenance in the world of collectibles.
Editor: And what does this mean for collectors and the future of similar cases?
Dr. Hanson: Well, it indicates that collectors must perform thorough due diligence before acquiring items, especially when it comes to historically significant items like Lennon’s watch. The ruling reinforces that stolen property—regardless of where it’s found—does not grant new ownership rights. This case might deter similar claims in the future, as stakeholders become more aware of the legal implications involved.
Editor: Compelling insights! Lastly, how do you think Yoko Ono feels about this ruling, considering the watch’s sentimental value?
Dr. Hanson: Given the emotional attachment connected to items owned by loved ones, it’s likely that the ruling is a form of closure for Ono. This watch isn’t merely a timepiece—it represents a crucial memory of her late husband. It’s not just about ownership; it’s about preserving the legacy of John Lennon.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Hanson, for your expert perspective on this intriguing case. It highlights the intersection of cultural heritage, law, and personal history.
Dr. Hanson: Thank you for having me! It’s essential to keep having these conversations as they shape our understanding of cultural assets today.
Editor: Indeed! And to our viewers, we hope you found this discussion enlightening. Stay tuned for more stories that resonate with our past and point towards our future.