Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 \u201cZaha Hadid\u201d 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 \u00a321.4mn to the Zaha Hadid Foundation in royalties for use of the trademark since 2018, according to the judgment.The firm\u2019s lawyers claimed the contract allowed the firm to give 12 months\u2019 notice to sever the agreement. But the foundation denied that the firm could terminate it, something the firm\u2019s lawyers argued would be an \u201cunusual and unreasonable\u201d restraint of trade and should be changed.Mr Justice Adam Johnson, at London\u2019s High Court, dismissed the architecture firm\u2019s 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 \u201ctoxic\u201d.At a 2016 event in Berlin, he said social housing tenants in central London were \u201cfreeriding\u201d 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\u2019s \u201c\u2018urban policy manifesto\u2019 does not reflect Zaha Hadid Architects\u2019 past \u2014 and will not be our future.\u201dMichael Anderson, a partner at law firm Joseph Hage Aaronson, which acted for the foundation, said the decision would \u201chave the effect of upholding Dame Zaha\u2019s intentions and vision for her foundation and its charitable purposes\u201d. Anderson added that the architecture firm \u201chas had a significant benefit from the use of Dame Zaha\u2019s name, and it should pay for that benefit\u201d according to the contract.Zaha Hadid Architects and its lawyers did not reply to a request for comment.Additional reporting by Robert Smith<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Summarize this content to 2000 words in 6 paragraphs in Arabic Unlock the Editor\u2019s 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\u2019s name after losing the latest<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":153700,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[65],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-153699","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-culture"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153699","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=153699"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153699\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":153701,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153699\/revisions\/153701"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/153700"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153699"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153699"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/globetimeline.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153699"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}