Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor’s Digest for freeRoula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.Zaha Hadid Architects, the firm founded by Dame Zaha Hadid, has been forced to continue paying to use the late architect’s name after losing the latest round of a bitter fight surrounding her legacy.The firm, whose legal name is Zaha Hadid Limited, sued the Zaha Hadid Foundation in an attempt to bring an end to a licensing agreement between the two sides. The foundation is a charity which promotes the Iraqi-British architect’s work and the broader field of architecture.Baghdad-born Hadid, who died in 2016, was a pioneering architect who introduced fluid, dynamic forms to her buildings, which include Rome’s Maxxi contemporary art museum, the London Olympics Aquatics Centre and Guangzhou Opera House in China.Under the terms of the disputed agreement, the foundation licenses the trademark “Zaha Hadid” to the architecture firm in return for a royalty equal to 6 per cent of its net income.The firm, whose principal is Patrik Schumacher, has paid £21.4mn to the Zaha Hadid Foundation in royalties for use of the trademark since 2018, according to the judgment.The firm’s lawyers claimed the contract allowed the firm to give 12 months’ notice to sever the agreement. But the foundation denied that the firm could terminate it, something the firm’s lawyers argued would be an “unusual and unreasonable” restraint of trade and should be changed.Mr Justice Adam Johnson, at London’s High Court, dismissed the architecture firm’s claim, finding that there was no provision in the contract that would allow it to end the contract with the Zaha Hadid Foundation. He said he thought the firm was really complaining that it was paying too much for the trademark.Zaha Hadid Architects would be able to rename itself, but it must continue to pay the licensing fee and use the trademark in some form.Schumacher could also set up his own firm under a different name. He has been involved in previous controversies. There was a legal dispute in 2018-20 where Schumacher, a trustee of the foundation, tried and failed to have the other three trustees removed; the judge in that earlier case described the situation as “toxic”.At a 2016 event in Berlin, he said social housing tenants in central London were “freeriding” and called for the privatisation of city streets and the abolition of social housing. In response, Zaha Hadid Architects sent out a letter saying Schumacher’s “‘urban policy manifesto’ does not reflect Zaha Hadid Architects’ past — and will not be our future.”Michael Anderson, a partner at law firm Joseph Hage Aaronson, which acted for the foundation, said the decision would “have the effect of upholding Dame Zaha’s intentions and vision for her foundation and its charitable purposes”. Anderson added that the architecture firm “has had a significant benefit from the use of Dame Zaha’s name, and it should pay for that benefit” according to the contract.Zaha Hadid Architects and its lawyers did not reply to a request for comment.Additional reporting by Robert Smith
