British perfumier Jo Malone is being sued by Estée Lauder Companies for using her own name in a fragrance collaboration with high street retailer Zara, in a legal dispute that highlights the complexities 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 her name. The deal allowed Estée Lauder to expand the luxury fragrance label globally, but it also placed contractual restrictions on Malone’s ability to use the “Jo Malone” name in connection with fragrance marketing in the future.
The latest dispute relates to 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 taken issue with the use of Malone’s name on the product packaging, which reportedly included the wording: “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”
Estée Lauder claims the wording breaches the terms agreed when Malone sold her original company. The group has filed legal action against Malone personally, her Jo Loves business and Zara’s UK arm, alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract and “passing off”, a legal claim that customers may be misled into believing the products are linked to the Jo Malone London brand.
A spokesperson for Estée Lauder Companies said Malone had accepted clear contractual obligations when she sold the company more than two decades ago. The spokesperson said she had been compensated as part of the agreement and had complied with its terms for many years. They added that while Malone is free to pursue new business ventures, the company would act to protect the brand it had invested in building if contractual terms were breached.
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, developing a reputation for distinctive scents inspired by British nature, gardens and seasonal ingredients. The brand quickly gained popularity for its elegant fragrances and minimalist design, expanding into candles, bath products and home fragrances before its acquisition by Estée Lauder.
Following the sale, the brand grew into a global luxury fragrance powerhouse with boutiques around the world. However, Malone eventually stepped away from the company she founded.
In 2011 she returned to the fragrance industry by launching Jo Loves, a new brand designed to reflect her continued passion for scent creation. The business focuses on niche fragrances and lifestyle products and operates independently of Jo Malone London.
Despite this separation, the current lawsuit suggests Estée Lauder believes the Zara collaboration blurred the distinction between the two brands by prominently referencing Malone’s name in connection with fragrance products.
The collaboration with Zara brought Malone’s fragrance expertise to a broader audience, with perfumes priced significantly lower than traditional luxury fragrances. Zara has increasingly developed 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 triggered legal concerns for Estée Lauder, which remains highly protective of the Jo Malone London trademark.
Malone has previously spoken about regretting the decision to sell the commercial rights to her name when she sold the original company. Such arrangements are common in industries such as fashion and beauty, where founders’ names often become powerful global trademarks. When those brands are sold, the acquiring company typically retains exclusive rights to use the name within certain commercial categories.
The dispute now places the focus on how those contractual restrictions should be interpreted. The case is expected to examine whether the wording used in the Zara collaboration constitutes commercial use of the “Jo Malone” name in a way that violates the original agreement.
Trademark disputes involving personal names are relatively common in the luxury goods sector, particularly when founders attempt to launch new businesses 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, making the protection of its intellectual property a priority. For Malone, the case highlights the long-term implications of selling a brand built around a personal identity.
The legal proceedings are likely to centre on whether consumers could reasonably be confused about the origins of the fragrances and whether Malone’s involvement in the Zara collaboration breached the restrictions set out in the original sale agreement.
The outcome could have wider implications for entrepreneurs who sell businesses tied closely to their own names, particularly in industries where branding and personal reputation are deeply intertwined.
Read more:
Jo Malone sued by Estée Lauder over use of her own name in Zara fragrance collaboration
