US cosmetics giant Estée Lauder Companies has launched legal action against British perfumer Jo Malone, her new fragrance brand, and Zara UK for the use of her name in a high-street perfume collaboration.
The case centres on Malone's eponymous name, which she sold to Estée Lauder in 1999. Under the terms of that agreement, she was restricted from using 'Jo Malone' for commercial purposes, including fragrance marketing.
Jo Malone's Link With Estée Lauder
Jo Malone grew up on a council estate in Barnehurst, south-east London, before turning her name into a global luxury fragrance brand. After selling her brand and name rights to Estée Lauder, Malone stepped down as creative director in 2006.
In previous interviews, she has described the sale as the 'biggest mistake' of her life, reflecting the personal and professional impact of relinquishing her name.
Once her non-compete agreement expired in 2011, Malone founded Jo Loves as her new fragrance venture. Over the past decade, Jo Loves has built a fan base for its custom scents and creative collaborations.
The Zara Deal That Sparked the Lawsuit
High-street collaborations are increasingly common, with designers and perfumers looking to reach younger audiences at lower price points. Some people may not afford £5,000 fragrances, but a Zara bottle that costs £20-£30 suddenly introduces the name to millions. This strategy can boost visibility but also risks legal disputes if brand ownership isn't clear.
In the past, Jo Loves have partnered with Zara to release an accessible, high-street perfume line. The packaging and even social media posts prominently features the wording: 'A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.'
Because the perfumer used 'Jo Malone' for another brand, it has prompted Estée Lauder to file a lawsuit this week. It cites breach of contract, trademark infringement, and 'passing off'—a legal term in UK law for misleading consumers into believing that the products are connected to another established brand. In simple terms, it's like seeing a familiar luxury name on a more affordable product and assuming it's part of the original high-end range.
An Estée Lauder spokesperson told the Financial Times: 'When Ms Jo Malone sold the brand to The Estée Lauder Companies in 1999, she agreed to clear contractual terms that included refraining from using the Jo Malone name in certain commercial contexts. Reportedly, Malone was paid as part of this deal, and followed its terms for many years.
'Ms Malone's use of the name 'Jo Malone' in connection with recent commercial ventures goes beyond that legal agreement and undermines Jo Malone London's unique brand equity', added the Estée Lauder representative.
How Brand Names Can Cause Disputes?
Malone's situation is not unique. Many founders who sell their eponymous brands face similar restrictions.
Make-up artist Bobbi Brown sold her name and brand to Estée Lauder, later creating a new venture called Jones Road. Handbag designer Kate Spade changed her name to Kate Valentine after selling her brand to Liz Claiborne in 2007, allowing her to launch new products without legal complications. Even outside beauty and fashion, this issue can arise whenever a founder's name has strong recognition.
These examples highlight the complex balance between personal identity and corporate ownership in business industries, showing that even celebrated creators must navigate strict legal frameworks when their name carries commercial value.
What This Means for Consumers
For shoppers, the case could change how brands put founder names on their products. Many may assume that a name on a perfume or beauty product signals direct involvement by the original creator. Legal disputes like this emphasise that brand ownership and creative authorship are not always the same thing.
For now, industry experts will be watching closely as the case could set a standard for other founders in the beauty and fashion industries who are dealing with similar agreements.
