With more than 950 projects across 44 countries and offices in London, Hong Kong, Beijing and Mexico City, Zaha Hadid Architects (ZHA) is one of the most recognisable names in contemporary architecture. Founded in 1979 by Zaha Hadid — the first woman to win the Pritzker Architecture Prize — the firm built an identity closely tied to its founder’s name, while also developing its own operational and creative autonomy into a global brand. Now, that very name could change.
Zaha Hadid Architects may no longer be called Zaha Hadid
A 2013 licensing agreement and a recent ruling by the UK Court of Appeal have opened the possibility that Zaha Hadid Architects may drop its founder’s name, ten years after her death.
View Article details
- La redazione di Domus
- 03 March 2026
At the centre of the dispute is a licensing agreement signed in 2013 between the practice and the Zaha Hadid Foundation, the organisation that manages the architect’s archive and cultural legacy. The agreement allowed the studio to continue using the name “Zaha Hadid” in exchange for an annual royalty reportedly equal to six per cent of its revenue. After Hadid’s death in 2016, leadership of the firm passed to longtime collaborator Patrik Schumacher, who now serves as principal of the London-based practice. He initiated legal proceedings against the foundation, arguing that the agreement was not intended to remain in force indefinitely. A recent decision by the UK Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the studio, determining that the agreement can be reconsidered and potentially terminated. The ruling overturns the previous interpretation and opens the door to a possible name change.
he issue, however, goes beyond legal or financial considerations. It reflects a broader shift in global architecture: the evolving relationship between the legacy of major architects and the corporate structures that have grown from their names into independent brands. At a time when many large practices continue to deliver projects that were never imagined or approved by their founders, it is reasonable to ask whether works should continue to be signed under a name that no longer represents a living author.
Photo Yü Lan from Adobe Stock
Photo Peeradontax from Adobe Stock
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Luke Hayes
Photo Ed Reeve
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Hufton + Crow
Photo Laurian Ghinitoiu
Photo Laurian Ghinitoiu
What makes the Zaha Hadid Architects case particularly significant is that it could become one of the rare instances in which a fully active global firm renounces its founder’s name not as part of a strategic rebrand, but as the result of a legal dispute between the practice and the foundation that safeguards her legacy.
For now, no final decision has been announced. The court’s ruling does not require a name change, but it grants the studio the right to renegotiate or terminate the licensing agreement. Whether this will ultimately lead to a rebranding remains an internal decision for ZHA.
Opening image: Zaha Hadid at the Heydar Aliyev Cultural Center, Baku, November 2013. Photo Dmitry Ternovoy via Wikimedia Commons