Skip to content 
A recent legal dispute involving British perfumer Jo Malone CBE, retail giant Zara, and cosmetics company Estée Lauder has brought renewed attention to an important issue in intellectual property law: who owns the commercial rights to a personal name once it becomes a trade mark?
The dispute centres on a fragrance collaboration between Malone’s newer brand Jo Loves and fashion retailer Zara. However, Estée Lauder, which owns the Jo Malone London fragrance brand, has reportedly launched legal proceedings alleging that the use of Malone’s name in connection with the collaboration infringes its rights and breaches previous contractual agreements.
The case highlights the complexities surrounding trade marks based on personal names, particularly where founders sell businesses built around their identity.
The Background to the Dispute
Jo Malone founded the luxury fragrance brand Jo Malone London in the early 1990s. The company quickly developed a strong reputation in the luxury beauty market and was sold to Estée Lauder in 1999.
As part of that transaction, Estée Lauder acquired the intellectual property rights associated with the brand, including trade marks incorporating the Jo Malone name.
Following her departure from the company in 2006, Malone later launched a new fragrance business called Jo Loves in 2011.
The recent issue arises from a collaboration between Jo Loves and Zara, which included fragrances reportedly described on packaging as “a creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”
Estée Lauder has argued that this reference to Malone’s name risks confusing consumers into believing the fragrances are connected with the Jo Malone London brand that it owns.
The company has reportedly brought claims including trade mark infringement, passing off and breach of contract. These has been filed against Jo Malone in her personal capacity, Jo Loves and Zara UK.
Can Someone Be Prevented From Using Their Own Name?
While it may appear surprising that someone could be restricted from using their own name in business, such disputes are not uncommon where personal names become valuable brands.
When a company built around a founder’s name is sold, the buyer will often acquire:
- The registered trade marks incorporating that name, and
- Contractual protections preventing the founder from using the name commercially in competing industries.
In sectors such as fashion, cosmetics and luxury goods, the personal identity of the founder can be central to the brand’s reputation. As a result, the purchaser will often insist on strong protections to safeguard the value of the acquired goodwill.
Once these rights are transferred, they can be enforced like any other intellectual property asset.
Personal Names as Trade Marks in the UK
Under the Trade Marks Act 1994, personal names can be registered as trade marks provided they are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one business from those of another.
Examples are common across many industries, including:
- Jo Malone
- Karen Millen
- Tom Ford
- Ralph Lauren
However, once a name becomes a registered trade mark owned by a company, the original individual may no longer have unrestricted rights to use that name commercially within the same sector.
Where the use of the name could cause consumer confusion, the trade mark owner may bring claims for trade mark infringement or passing off.
The Importance of Contractual Restrictions
In many founder-led businesses, the key legal restrictions do not arise solely from trade mark law but from the terms of the original sale agreement.
Such agreements often include:
- Non-compete clauses
- Restrictions on the use of the founder’s name
- Limitations on marketing activities
- Confidentiality obligations
If a founder later launches a new venture that conflicts with these restrictions, the purchaser may pursue claims for breach of contract in addition to intellectual property infringement.
The precise outcome will usually depend on the exact wording of the agreement and the context in which the name is used.
Lessons for Business Owners
The dispute provides a useful reminder of the importance of carefully managing intellectual property rights when selling a business.
Entrepreneurs should be particularly mindful that:
- Selling a brand built around your name may involve transferring ownership of that name as a trade mark.
- Future business ventures could be restricted by contractual obligations.
- Clear legal advice is essential when negotiating the sale of a founder-led brand.
Similarly, businesses acquiring such brands must ensure that trade mark rights and contractual protections are sufficiently robust to preserve the value of the goodwill they have purchased.
Conclusion
The legal dispute between Jo Malone and Estée Lauder demonstrates the powerful role that intellectual property rights play in modern branding.
While a personal name may initially belong to an individual, once it becomes a registered trade mark and commercial asset, control over that name can shift significantly.
For founders and businesses alike, the case serves as a reminder that trade marks are among the most valuable – and carefully protected – assets in any brand-driven industry.
