Jo Malone sued for using her own name - trademark lessons for business owners

Yesterday, Estée Lauder filed a lawsuit in a UK court against perfumer Jo Malone - for using her own name.

The case involves Jo Malone's collaboration with Zara, where fragrances were sold with the packaging line "Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves." Estée Lauder claims this breaches the agreement Malone signed when she sold her original brand in 1999 - an agreement that included restrictions on using the "Jo Malone" name in certain commercial contexts, including the marketing of fragrances.

The claims include breach of contract, trademark infringement, and "passing off" - a legal concept under English law where consumers are misled into thinking products are connected to another business.

Jo Malone has previously described selling the rights to her name as the "biggest mistake of my life." She is not the first founder to face this situation, and she will not be the last.

A pattern that keeps repeating

The Jo Malone case is not an isolated incident. Selling a brand built around a personal name - and the trademark rights that go with it - is common in the beauty, fashion, and luxury sectors.

Bobbi Brown sold her namesake cosmetics brand to Estée Lauder and later launched a separate venture called Jones Road, carefully avoiding the use of her original name. Kate Spade sold her brand to Liz Claiborne and later adopted the name Kate Valentine for new projects. The pattern is the same: founders sell their name, then spend years navigating the restrictions that come with that decision.

What makes the Jo Malone case notable is that 27 years passed between the sale and the lawsuit. The restrictions did not expire. The trademark rights did not fade. The agreement Malone signed in 1999 is being enforced in 2026.

What "passing off" means - and why it matters

One of the claims in the Estée Lauder lawsuit is "passing off." This is a legal doctrine under English law that applies when one business's products or branding could mislead consumers into thinking they are connected to another business.

In this case, Estée Lauder argues that the phrase "Created by Jo Malone CBE" on Zara's fragrance packaging could lead consumers to associate the products with the Jo Malone London brand - which Estée Lauder owns.

Passing off does not require a registered trademark. It protects the goodwill and reputation that a business has built, even without formal registration. But when a registered trademark is involved - as it is here - the case becomes stronger.

This is directly relevant to any UK business owner. If another company launches a product or files a trademark that is similar enough to yours to cause confusion, passing off is one of the grounds you can use to challenge them. And if you have a registered trademark, you have an additional layer of protection through the formal opposition and infringement routes.

Lessons for every business owner

You do not need to be selling a business for millions to learn from this case. The principles apply at every scale.

Your brand name is your most valuable asset. Jo Malone built a globally recognised brand around her name. When she sold it, she lost control of how that name could be used - permanently. For SME owners, the lesson is simpler: register your trademark before someone else does, and understand what you are signing if you ever transfer those rights.

Trademark restrictions do not expire easily. The 1999 agreement is being enforced 27 years later. If you enter into any agreement involving your trademark - whether selling a business, licensing your brand, or partnering with a distributor — the restrictions in that agreement may follow you for decades.

"Passing off" can catch you even without a registered trademark. If your business has built goodwill and reputation, another business trading under a confusingly similar name may be liable for passing off. But proving passing off without a registration is harder and more expensive than enforcing a registered mark. Registration gives you clearer, stronger rights.

Monitor what others are doing with your name. Estée Lauder is actively monitoring how the "Jo Malone" name is used in commerce - and taking action when they believe the line has been crossed. Most SMEs do not monitor at all. They would not know if someone filed a trademark application for a similar name, let alone if products were being sold under a confusingly similar brand.

The cost of not paying attention

The Jo Malone case will be resolved by lawyers in a courtroom. For most UK businesses, trademark conflicts never reach that stage - they are resolved much earlier, during the 2-month opposition window when a conflicting mark is first published.

But that only works if you know about the filing in the first place.

In 2025, over 203,000 trademark applications were filed in the UK - roughly 3,900 every week. Each one is published in the Trade Marks Journal, and each one opens a 2-month window for existing trademark owners to oppose. After that window closes, challenging a registered mark becomes significantly more expensive.

Most UK businesses have no monitoring in place. They do not read the Trade Marks Journal. They do not know when a conflicting mark is filed. They find out months or years later - if they find out at all.

Protect your name before someone else uses it

Whether you are a sole trader with a distinctive brand name, a limited company with a registered trademark, or a founder thinking about the long-term value of your brand - the Jo Malone case is a reminder that trademark rights matter.

Check if your brand name conflicts with existing UK trademarks - free, in 60 seconds: tmguard.uk/check

TMGuard monitors the UK Trade Marks Journal every week and alerts you when a conflicting mark is published. You get a risk score, Companies House intelligence on the applicant, and a clear timeline for action. Plans start at £99/year.

Because your name is worth protecting.