Interviews

Reflections on London with INTA CEO Etienne Sanz de Acedo

Published: May 7, 2026

Etienne San de Acedo, INTA (USA)

As the London Annual Meeting draws to a close, the INTA Bulletin sat down with INTA CEO Etienne Sanz de Acedo to capture the mood of the week and the thinking behind the scenes. He discusses the scale of the Meeting—nearly 10,000 registrants—along with the operational realities of delivering a global event on a compressed planning timeline. He also reflects on the strength of INTA’s advocacy work and on the practical reasons INTA will return to San Diego in 2027.

What were your overall impressions of this Annual Meeting?
Firstly, in terms of attendance, this has been a great Annual Meeting. In terms of registered attendees, we almost reached 10,000. We also know that there have been many other IP professionals from around the world who have been here as well.

There’s been a very positive vibe, a lot of conversations around IP, and a lot of fun as well! We’re very happy about it, and we wish everyone safe travels home, and, of course, we’re looking forward to next year.

Planning an event of this size and scope is incredibly complex, and it takes a tremendous amount of planning among a very small team. At a very high level, what’s involved? And what’s been different about organizing this Meeting in London?
Organizing an Annual Meeting for 10,000+ registrants—and knowing that there are even more people who come to the host city for the event—is a huge responsibility. It’s also a big investment for the Association.

On average, INTA is probably investing between US $7 and 8 million in putting together the Annual Meeting. We have to secure the convention center space and block hotels. You have to consider food and beverage, production support and audio-visual equipment, security, invited speakers—so it’s a huge investment and a huge coordination effort. And this is a huge responsibility with a tiny staff—we have about 68 to 70 people in total.

Normally, it takes at least three years to properly plan an Annual Meeting in terms of identifying the location, securing that space, signing the contracts, and all the work that needs to happen. With London, we didn’t have those three years, and that has had significant operational implications. We’ve tried to do the best we could, but it’s not always ideal, and we understand that.

As we approach the close of the Meeting, what are the major lessons learned for you?
Well, there are many. It’s always better when the convention center is a little closer to the hotels. This time, it was a bit far away, even though we had the Elizabeth line that helped with travel.

The other one is acknowledging that not everybody has the same budget when it comes to registering for the Annual Meeting. And we need to be aware of that and to try to identify new formats, new venues, new offerings. That’s important.

But the overall lesson is that we’re a big community that gets together, that enjoys coming together, and that has impact.

Going more specifically into what happens within the convention center—we’re a tremendously impactful organization. And here I’m talking more about advocacy. We’ve hosted more than 30 heads of IP offices from around the world in London this week. We’ve had, out of the TM5, four of the five main leading trademark offices from around the world. We had all five members of IP5 [the five largest IP offices in the world]. We had a large delegation from the World Intellectual Property Organization, led by Director General Daren Tang. We had around 15 judges from all around the world, including several Supreme Court judges. And this is a unique opportunity to talk about the advancement of the law, and that’s a huge benefit for brands and for corporations. That’s a very positive outcome from this Annual Meeting.

There are things that, on the operational side, we’ll look to improve, which we’re always doing, of course. This time, as I mentioned, we had less time to plan. So, we’ll hopefully avoid having such a short timeline to organize an Annual Meeting, while continuing to be as open as possible.

We’ve hosted more than 30 heads of IP offices from around the world in London this week.

What were your takeaways from those meetings and sessions featuring high-level government officials and members of the judiciary? Any “lightbulb” moments from a substantive point of view?
Well, without entering into the details of those conversations, because there is always an element of discretion that needs to be maintained and respected, there is huge respect for INTA, and strong credibility for INTA’s positions. And that’s really the work of our committees and volunteers. And we can see year after year that the Association is more impactful, and that’s extremely important, particularly at times like right now that are more difficult, in terms of geopolitics, etc.

You’ve mentioned there were almost 10,000 registrants here in London. They’re all arriving with their own unique expectations and goals—including in terms of what they want to achieve and experience. We’re trying to cater to everyone. What is your message to those whose expectations were perhaps not completely met?
First, I want to offer an apology to those who were not totally satisfied—we truly do our very best. This year was particularly complicated because we had limited time to organize everything. I would also remind everyone that what I—or staff—might think personally isn’t always the same as what we need to do as an organization for the benefit of the majority. We cannot please everyone, but we do our very best to please as many registrants as possible.

To those who are not totally satisfied: we’re listening, you’ve been heard, and we welcome more of your insights so we can continue improving our offerings in the future.

To those who are not totally satisfied: we’re listening, you’ve been heard, and we welcome more of your insights so we can continue improving our offerings in the future.

We’ve got all these lessons learned, and now we need to put them into action. As we look ahead to 2027, why are we going back to San Diego so soon?
I know there’s been a lot of speculation around it. And of course, there is one thing that is true: we all love San Diego. There’s no doubt about that.

We were supposed to be in San Diego in 2021, which was one of the years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and of course that had to be canceled. For INTA to avoid a very significant financial penalty, San Diego required INTA to bring two Annual Meetings back to the city, in 2025 and 2027. This is the reason why we’re coming back to San Diego so soon, and we’re excited about it.

What is your message to everyone as we pack our bags and fly out of London?
Well, again, I’m very thankful to everyone—and I insist, EVERYONE—no matter whether you are a registrant to the Annual Meeting or if you were just here because of the Annual Meeting.

Perhaps a reminder to everyone that everybody comes to one city because INTA is putting together an Annual Meeting, because INTA is investing US $7 to 8 million in the organization of the Annual Meeting. It’s a major investment for the Association. It’s a major commitment and risk. I was referring before to 2021—those were clear examples in which INTA had invested a significant amount of money that then translated into very significant losses for the organization.

Now, by doing that, by making that investment, we’re able to bring thousands of IP professionals from around the world together for what is arguably their most productive week of the year. This is of huge value to the companies, to the firms in terms of business development, but also to the individuals in terms of their own growth.

So again, I’m extremely thankful to everyone, wishing everybody safe travels, perhaps a little rest after the Annual Meeting madness, but perhaps also some kind of reflection on the fact that this organization is a not-for-profit, and that the role of not-for-profits nowadays is even more important. It helps provide a kind of counterbalance, particularly in a global environment that is so complicated.

Although every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this article, readers are urged to check independently on matters of specific concern or interest. The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the person being interviewed and do not purport to reflect the views of INTA or its members.