British perfumer Jo Malone is being sued by Estée Lauder Companies for using her own name in a fragrance collaboration with retailer Zara. This is a legal dispute that highlights the complexity of brand ownership when a founder sells the rights to their name.
The American cosmetics giant purchased Malone’s original fragrance business, Jo Malone London, in 1999, acquiring not only the brand but also the commercial rights associated with its name. The deal allowed Estée Lauder to expand the luxury perfume label globally, but also placed contractual restrictions on Malone’s ability to use the name “Jo Malone” in connection with fragrance marketing in the future.
The latest controversy concerns a collaboration between Zara and Malone’s newer brand Jo Loves. The partnership, which began in 2019, produced a range of fragrances sold through Zara stores and online platforms. However, Estée Lauder has objected to the use of Malone’s name on the product’s packaging, which reportedly included the following wording: “A creation of Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”
Estée Lauder claims the wording violates the terms Malone agreed to when she sold her original company. The group has taken legal action against Malone personally, her Jo Loves store and the UK arm of Zara, alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract and “passing-off”, a legal claim that could mislead customers into believing the products are associated with the Jo Malone London brand.
A spokeswoman for Estée Lauder Companies said Malone assumed clear contractual obligations when she sold the company more than two decades ago. The spokeswoman said she was compensated under the agreement and had complied with the terms for many years. They added that while Malone had the freedom to pursue new business ventures, the company would act to protect the brand it invested in building if contract terms were violated.
Zara UK has declined to comment on the case and Malone has yet to publicly respond to the claims.
Malone originally founded her fragrance business in the early 1990s and developed a reputation for distinctive scents inspired by British nature, gardens and seasonal ingredients. The brand quickly gained popularity for its elegant scents and minimalist designs and expanded into candles, bath products and home fragrances before its acquisition by Estée Lauder.
After the sale, the brand grew into a global luxury fragrance company with boutiques around the world. However, Malone eventually withdrew from the company she founded.
In 2011, she returned to the fragrance industry and launched Jo Loves, a new brand designed to reflect her ongoing passion for fragrance creation. The company focuses on niche fragrances and lifestyle products and operates independently of Jo Malone London.
Despite this separation, the current lawsuit suggests that Estée Lauder believes its collaboration with Zara blurred the distinction between the two brands by prominently mentioning Malone’s name in connection with fragrance products.
The collaboration with Zara brought Malone’s fragrance expertise to a wider audience, with perfume prices significantly lower than traditional luxury fragrances. Zara has increasingly established partnerships with well-known perfumers as it expands its lifestyle and beauty offerings.
However, the presence of Malone’s name on the packaging appears to have raised legal concerns at Estée Lauder, which remains strongly protective of the Jo Malone London brand.
Malone has previously spoken about how she regretted the decision to sell the commercial rights to her name when she sold the original company. Such agreements are common in industries such as fashion and beauty, where the founders’ names often become powerful global brands. When these trademarks are sold, the acquiring company typically retains the exclusive right to use the name in certain commercial categories.
The focus of the dispute is now the question of how these contractual restrictions should be interpreted. The case will examine whether the language used in the collaboration with Zara constitutes a commercial use of the name “Jo Malone” in a manner that violates the original agreement.
Trademark disputes involving personal names are relatively common in the luxury goods sector, particularly when founders attempt to start new companies in the same industry after selling their original brands.
For Estée Lauder, the Jo Malone London label remains one of its most successful fragrance brands, which is why protecting its intellectual property is a top priority. For Malone, the case highlights the long-term impact of selling a brand based on a personal identity.
The focus of the lawsuit is likely to be whether consumers could reasonably be confused about the origin of the fragrances and whether Malone’s involvement in the collaboration with Zara violated the restrictions set out in the original sales contract.
The result could have broader implications for entrepreneurs who sell businesses closely associated with their own names, particularly in industries where branding and personal reputation are closely linked.
