Jo Malone has been sued by Estée Lauder for using her name in a Zara fragrance collaboration

British perfumer Jo Malone is being sued by the Estée Lauder Companies for using her name in a fragrance collaboration with high street retailer Zara, in a legal dispute that highlights the difficulty of brand ownership when a founder sells the rights to her name.

The American cosmetics giant bought Malone’s perfume business, Jo Malone London, in 1999, acquiring not only the brand but also the commercial rights associated with his name. The agreement allowed Estée Lauder to expand the fragrance label worldwide, but it also placed contractual restrictions on Malone’s ability to use the name “Jo Malone” in future perfume marketing.

The latest controversy is related to the collaboration between Zara and Malone’s new brand, Jo Loves. The partnership, which began in 2019, has produced a number of fragrances sold through Zara’s stores and online platforms. However, Estée Lauder has taken issue with the use of Malone’s name on the product’s packaging, which reportedly included the words: “The creation of Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”

Estée Lauder says the names violate the terms agreed upon when Malone sold his startup company. The group has personally taken legal action against Malone, his 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 the Estée Lauder Companies said Malone accepted clear contractual obligations when he sold the company more than two decades ago. The spokesman said he was compensated as part of the settlement and had been abiding by its terms for many years. They added that while Malone is free to do new business, the company will work to protect the brand it has invested in building if the terms of the contract are breached.

Zara UK declined to comment on the case, and Malone has not publicly responded to the claims.

Malone originally founded her fragrance business in the early 1990s, developing a reputation for unique fragrances inspired by British nature, gardens and seasonal ingredients. The brand quickly became popular for its sweet scent and minimalist design, growing into candles, bath products and home fragrances before being acquired by Estée Lauder.

After the sale, the brand grew into a global fragrance powerhouse with boutiques all over the world. However, Malone eventually left the company he founded.

In 2011 she returned to the perfume industry with the launch of Jo Loves, a new brand designed to reflect her continued passion for fragrance creation. The business focuses on niche fragrances and lifestyle products and operates independently of Jo Malone London.

Despite this distinction, the current case suggests that Estée Lauder believes that the Zara collaboration has blurred the distinction between the two brands by prominently referencing Malone’s name in relation to perfume products.

The collaboration with Zara brought Malone’s fragrance technology to a wider audience, with fragrances at a much lower price point than traditional perfumes. Zara has developed relationships 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 caused legal concerns for Estée Lauder, which remains highly protective of the Jo Malone trademark in London.

Malone has previously spoken of regretting the decision to sell the commercial rights to his name when he sold the original company. Such arrangements are common in industries such as fashion and beauty, where founders’ names are often powerful global trademarks. When those brands are sold, the acquiring company usually retains exclusive rights to use the name within certain commercial categories.

The dispute now focuses on how those contractual limitations should be interpreted. The lawsuit is expected to test whether the names used in the Zara collaboration constitute commercial use of the name “Jo Malone” in a way that violates the original agreement.

Trademark disputes involving personal names are common in the luxury goods sector, especially when founders try to establish new businesses in the same industry after selling their original products.

For Estée Lauder, the Jo Malone London label remains one of its flagship fragrance brands, making protecting its intellectual property a priority. For Malone, the case highlights the long-term consequences of selling a product built around personal identity.

The legal action is likely to focus on whether consumers could reasonably be confused about the origin of the perfume and whether Malone’s involvement in the Zara collaboration violated restrictions set out in the original sales agreement.

The result could have far-reaching implications for entrepreneurs who sell businesses associated with their names, especially in industries where sales and personal reputation are deeply intertwined.