Zaha Hadid Architects’ licensing case concerning the continued use of the late architect’s name has reaffirmed a binding agreement between the firm and the Zaha Hadid Foundation, following a High Court decision issued on December 20, 2024. The ruling enforces a contract signed in 2013 that obligates the studio to pay six percent of its annual revenue to the Foundation. Since 2018, this licensing arrangement has generated payments totaling £21.4 million. Zaha Hadid Architects had argued that the agreement was unreasonable, limited trade, and placed a burden on long-term sustainability, but the court rejected this claim. Justice Adam Johnson determined that the agreement contains no clause allowing termination by the firm and found that the use of Hadid’s name continues to provide a measurable commercial advantage. Citing consistent revenue increases since the agreement was signed, the court concluded that the arrangement encourages rather than restricts economic activity. The Foundation’s legal counsel emphasized that the ruling aligns with Zaha Hadid’s vision for her legacy and supports the charitable purposes of the Foundation. Principal director Patrik Schumacher retains the option to establish a new practice under a different name. The studio reported a record turnover of £69.4 million in 2023, with revenues exceeding £60 million in the previous two years. The decision marks the most recent chapter in ongoing legal matters between the firm and the Foundation, following the resolution of a prior estate dispute in 2020. The judgment underscores the enforceability of legacy-based licensing in architectural practice.
Zaha Hadid Architects framed its challenge to the licensing agreement as a forward-looking concern over the firm’s structural sustainability under future leadership. Director Charles Walker stated that although the studio remains profitable, its leadership is worried about whether the current licensing costs can be managed long-term. He emphasized that the issue was not immediate affordability but the risk that subsequent leadership may not have the same capacity to consistently generate high-level work. Using the analogy of “somebody trying to swim with rocks in their pockets,” he suggested that while manageable now, the burden could weigh down the practice over time.
The studio sought legal clearance to exit a licensing contract signed in 2013, three years before Zaha Hadid died in 2016. The agreement requires the firm to pay six percent of its annual revenue to the Zaha Hadid Foundation in exchange for continued use of the founder’s name. Since 2018, the firm has paid £21.4 million under this arrangement. Zaha Hadid Architects argued the deal was commercially unreasonable, restrictive to trade, and a barrier to future flexibility. However, the High Court dismissed the claim in a judgment delivered on December 20, 2024.
Justice Adam Johnson ruled that the contract contains no clause permitting unilateral termination by the firm. He described the licensing model as a commercially viable framework that does not restrict business activity. He pointed to the firm’s financial performance since the agreement’s inception, noting that annual revenues reached over £60 million in 2021 and 2022 and climbed to £69.4 million in 2023. The judge determined that rather than impeding growth, the arrangement coincided with a period of financial expansion.
Walker acknowledged during testimony that the firm had been “very successful” in recent years. However, he maintained that the cost of licensing Hadid’s name could eventually limit competitiveness if future directors are unable to sustain the same volume or scale of work. Zaha Hadid Architects further argued that the commercial value of the name had declined. The court rejected this claim. Judge Johnson affirmed that the name still holds “very significant value” and remains a key contributor to the company’s commercial position and international reputation.
In his written judgment, Johnson concluded that the firm’s dissatisfaction was rooted not in the legal integrity of the agreement, but in its pricing. He stated, “The real nub of the company’s complaint is that it has come to think it is paying too much for the right it has acquired.” He emphasized that this view does not form a legal basis for revising or canceling the agreement.
The Zaha Hadid Foundation, which owns the trademark, welcomed the decision. Its legal team, Joseph Hage Anderson, characterized the ruling as an affirmation of Zaha Hadid’s intent to protect her name through the Foundation and use associated licensing income to support its charitable mission. Legal partner Michael Anderson noted that the firm has received substantial benefit from using the name and must continue to pay for that right under the existing contractual terms.
The case follows a separate four-year legal dispute over Hadid’s estate, resolved in 2020. Patrik Schumacher, principal director of the practice and Hadid’s professional successor, retains the option to establish a new firm under a different name should the current arrangement prove untenable for the practice in the future.
The High Court ruling reinforces the validity of legacy-based trademark agreements in architecture and emphasizes the long-term implications of branding rights tied to personal names. The Zaha Hadid name, protected under intellectual property law by the Foundation, continues to serve as a core asset in the firm’s commercial identity.
