Court Rules Zaha Hadid Architects Can End Its Naming Deal

Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) won a significant Court of Appeal ruling on 27 February 2026, confirming the firm’s right to terminate its 2013 trademark licensing agreement with the Zaha Hadid Foundation on reasonable notice. The decision overturns an earlier High Court judgement and gives ZHA the freedom to renegotiate the terms under which it uses the late architect’s name, or potentially rebrand entirely.

The Background: A Licensing Agreement That Started in 2013

The dispute at the heart of this case stretches back to a trademark licence signed in 2013, just three years before Zaha Hadid passed away in March 2016. The agreement required the architecture practice to pay the Zaha Hadid Foundation six percent of its annual net income in exchange for continued use of the name “Zaha Hadid.” Following Hadid’s death, her estate and the foundation were managed by her niece Rana Hadid, artist Brian Clarke, and property developer Peter Palumbo.

Between 2018 and 2024, that licensing arrangement generated £21.4 million for the foundation, according to court documents. ZHA’s principal, Patrik Schumacher, argued that the agreement was never intended to bind the two parties together forever and that the six percent fee was simply too high relative to the practice’s long-term sustainability.

Legal battles between Schumacher and the Zaha Hadid Foundation began almost immediately after Hadid’s death. A four-year dispute over her estate, valued at approximately $133 million, was eventually settled in 2020, with the majority directed toward the foundation rather than Schumacher. The naming dispute that culminated in the 2026 Court of Appeal ruling was, in many ways, the next chapter of that long-running tension.

What Did the High Court Originally Rule?

In December 2024, the High Court dismissed ZHA’s claim that the licensing agreement was an unfair restraint of trade. Judge Adam Johnson acknowledged that the practice had raised legitimate concerns about the long-term financial burden, but concluded that its economic activity had not been impaired by the arrangement. He pointed to the firm’s strong revenue growth as evidence that the agreement was not holding ZHA back competitively.

ZHA director Charles Walker offered a different perspective during the proceedings, arguing that while the practice was profitable at the time, the perpetual six percent levy posed a risk to its long-term viability. “The concern is the longevity of the business, whether it can sustain this in perpetuity,” Walker said in testimony. The High Court, however, was not persuaded that indefinite continuation of the contract constituted an unreasonable burden.

How Did the Court of Appeal Reach a Different Conclusion?

On 27 February 2026, Court of Appeal Justice Colin Birss overturned the High Court decision, ruling that the 2013 licensing agreement was never intended to be perpetual in nature. His reasoning centred on the principle that an agreement of indefinite duration must, by logic, include a right for either party to terminate it on reasonable notice.

Justice Birss also reflected on the long-term implications of treating the agreement as permanent. His judgement noted that architectural styles evolve, that unforeseen events could make continued association with any name disadvantageous, and that no commercial party could reasonably have intended to bind itself to such terms for decades or centuries. The ruling determined that both parties had the right to exit the agreement given sufficient notice, and that ZHA could now open fresh negotiations with the foundation.

What Does the Ruling Mean for Zaha Hadid Architects Going Forward?

The practical outcome of the Court of Appeal decision is that ZHA is no longer contractually locked into the 2013 terms. The practice can now approach the Zaha Hadid Foundation to negotiate a new arrangement, one that could involve a lower royalty rate, a revised fee structure, or an entirely different relationship between the two organisations.

In a statement issued following the ruling, a ZHA spokesperson confirmed the firm’s intent: “The practice will now engage in constructive discussions with the foundation about an updated licence. Following many consecutive years of record growth, the business is strong, with solid governance, healthy cash reserves and a clear long-term global plan, and will continue to honour Zaha Hadid’s legacy built over decades in developing acclaimed architecture across six continents.”

The statement also addressed the firm’s financial position directly, noting that Middle East income alone rose 45 percent between April 2024 and April 2025, from £27.1 million to £39.3 million. ZHA disputed any suggestion that the legal proceedings reflected financial difficulty on the part of the practice.

Could Zaha Hadid Architects Actually Change Its Name?

While the ruling opens the door to rebranding, it does not make it inevitable. Court documents indicate that ZHA currently intends to retain the Zaha Hadid name. The firm’s strong global brand recognition, built around some of the most iconic Zaha Hadid architect buildings of the past three decades, represents enormous commercial value that would be difficult to replicate under a different name.

At the same time, architecture history offers very few precedents for an active global practice renouncing a founder’s name mid-operation, particularly not as the result of a legal dispute rather than a voluntary strategic rebrand. Should ZHA choose to change its identity, it would be a landmark moment in the profession. For now, all indications point to renegotiation rather than reinvention.

The Zaha Hadid Foundation, which manages the architect’s archive and cultural legacy, has not issued a detailed public response to the Court of Appeal ruling as of early March 2026. The outcome of the forthcoming licence negotiations will determine whether the two entities can reach a sustainable agreement or whether the dispute escalates to further legal action. Notably, the Court of Appeal is the final tier at which this case can be heard unless leave is granted for a Supreme Court appeal.

The Broader Legacy: Architect Zaha Hadid and the Firm She Built

Whatever the outcome of the naming dispute, the body of work associated with architect Zaha Hadid remains one of the most consequential in contemporary architecture. From the MAXXI Museum in Rome to the Heydar Aliyev Center in Baku, the practice that bears her name has produced buildings that fundamentally challenged what architecture could look like. The parametric forms, fluid geometries, and structural ambition that defined her output continue to shape the firm’s design philosophy under Schumacher’s leadership.

What makes this case particularly significant for the profession is that it forces a conversation about how the relationship between a founder’s legacy and a living practice should be structured. Zaha Hadid Architects buildings are recognised globally, and the brand built around that name carries real value for clients, collaborators, and the broader public. The question the courts have now addressed is not whether that value exists, but who controls it and on what terms.

For more on the architects shaping contemporary practice, explore our coverage of leading architecture firms and the legal and business forces influencing how they operate.

Note: This article is based on publicly available court documents and press statements as of early March 2026. The outcome of negotiations between Zaha Hadid Architects and the Zaha Hadid Foundation remains pending.