Estée Lauder vs Jo Malone: What happens when founders sell their name?

In March 2026, The Estée Lauder Companies (ELC) started proceedings in the High Court against Jo Malone and Zara UK in connection with a fragrance collaboration under her newer brand, Jo Loves. The dispute centres on the use of the name “Jo Malone” within the collaboration’s marketing.

Background

Jo Malone founded the luxury fragrance brand Jo Malone London in 1990, building it into a globally recognised name in the premium beauty sector. In 1999, she sold her business to ELC, including the exclusive commercial rights to her own name.

Following her departure from the company in 2006, Malone launched her new Jo Loves venture. In 2019, she started to collaborate with fashion giant Zara to develop a fragrance range, without the luxury price tag. It is this collaboration which now sits at the centre of this dispute.

The dispute

The Zara perfume bottles prominently display their own branding, however, ELC takes issue with the wording on the back of the packaging: “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”

It is likely ELC will argue that this wording constitutes Breach of Contract, Trademark Infringement and Passing off. From ELC’s perspective, Jo Malone London has developed an extensive reputation over three decades. By selling the company in 1999, Jo Malone agreed to refrain from using her name in specific commercial situations, which includes marketing fragrances. Any perceived link between the two brands could create misrepresentation and consumer confusion in the marketplace and potentially cause damage to the established brand.

In contrast, Malone maintains that she sold her business, not her identity. She argues that using her own name is a legitimate expression of authorship rather than branding, capturing this sentiment succinctly in her statement: “I can’t stop being a person.”

Selling a name: The broader legal issue

This dispute highlights a recurring issue in intellectual property law, what happens when founders sell a brand built around their own name?

While founders may retain their personal identity, they can contractually relinquish the right to use their name in a commercial context. Ultimately, the extent to which they can use their own name will come down to the terms of the contract agreed. We have seen that in previous cases involving Karen Millen, Elizabeth Emmanuel and Hayley Page Gutman.

Why this case matters

The Malone case has yet to be decided, but the outcome will be instructive as to how broadly the court is willing to interpret and apply contractual restrictions, even where they affect an individual’s ability to use their own name.

In an era where personal branding, particularly through social media and influencer culture, is increasingly central to business identity, the distinction between an individual and their brand is becoming more blurred. The outcome may have significant implications for how founder-led businesses are structured and sold in the future, particularly where the founder’s name is integral to the brand.

We will watch how this one progresses with interest.

—

Looking for more guidance in this area? Get in touch with Sophie to find out more.