Key takeaways
- Estée Lauder Companies has initiated UK legal action against Jo Malone over the use of her name on ZARA‑sold Jo Loves fragrances.
- ELC argues that Malone previously agreed to contractual limits on using the Jo Malone name in commercial fragrance activity.
- The company claims recent use of the name breaches that agreement and risks consumer confusion with the Jo Malone London brand.
- Legal experts note this case highlights the complexities when founders sell their namesake brands but remain active in the same category.
- The dispute’s outcome will depend on the exact contractual wording agreed when ELC purchased Jo Malone London in 1999.
The US‑based beauty multinational Estée Lauder Companies (ELC) has initiated legal proceedings in the UK against perfumer Jo Malone over the use of her name.
Why Estée Lauder Companies has taken legal action
ELC acquired Malone’s fragrance brand, Jo Malone London, in 1999, which included the rights to use her name.
Malone left the company in 2006 and later launched another fragrance label, Jo Loves, in 2011. Most recently, she collaborated with ZARA owner Inditex to create fragrances for the brand.
ELC has launched the legal proceedings because of the appearance of the name “Jo Malone” on packaging for the Jo Loves fragrances sold at ZARA.
According to UK broadsheet newspaper Financial Times, Estée Lauder Companies filed the claim on Wednesday, alleging breach of contract, trademark infringement and “passing off” – a legal term referring to misleading consumers into believing that goods or services are associated with another company.
A spokesperson for ELC explained that the company has invested significantly in building the Jo Malone London brand. It said that when Malone sold the brand to Estée Lauder Companies in 1999, she agreed to clear contractual terms, including refraining from using the Jo Malone name in certain commercial contexts, such as the marketing of fragrances. “She was compensated as part of this agreement, and for many years, she abided by its terms,” it said.
However, the firm added that the recent use of the name ‘Jo Malone’ in connection with commercial ventures “goes beyond that legal agreement and undermines Jo Malone London’s unique brand equity.”
“We respect Ms. Malone’s right to pursue new opportunities. But legally binding contractual obligations cannot be disregarded, and when those terms are breached, we will protect the brand that we have invested in and built over decades.”
What legal experts say about the risks of name‑based brands
According to Patricia Collis, brand protection partner at business law firm Keystone Law, this case illustrates the complexities that arise when an individual uses their own name as a brand and then sells it, particularly if they remain active in the same commercial sphere.
Collis noted that despite the Jo Malone brand (including any trademarks existing at that time) being purchased by Estée Lauder over a quarter of a century ago, there is still a risk that consumers will think the fragrance offered by ZARA has some connection to the Jo Malone brand.
“The reference on the packaging and on ZARA’s website to this being a ‘creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves’ is clearly an attempt to demonstrate that it is Ms Malone herself that has been involved, rather than the Jo Malone brand. The reference to her CBE is clearly intentional, as is the reference to her ‘Jo Loves’ brand.”
“Whilst these factors could be sufficient to establish an own‑name defence for the purposes of trademark infringement, what we have here appears to primarily be a contractual dispute, at least at this stage,” said Collis. “How it plays out will ultimately depend on the precise wording of the agreement between the parties, and how that wording is interpreted.”