In March 2026, the Estée Lauder group of companies, including Jo Malone Ltd and Inc, brought a High Court claim against Joanna Willcox (aka Jo Malone), Jo Loves and Zara UK. At the nub of the spat is the use of various credit lines including: 'created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves' on signage, product labelling, packaging, websites, and social media in respect of a Jo Loves x Zara fragrance collab.
This use, Estée Lauder claims, is in breach of contractual restrictions on the commercial use of 'Jo Malone' that Ms Malone agreed to in 1999 when she sold her eponymous fragrance brand to Estée Lauder. The 1999 deal included an assignment of the rights in her name, and an agreement that Ms Malone would not, except in a personal capacity, use Jo Malone 'as a business, trade or company name in connection with any business…, or in connection with the marketing, advertising or promotion of any product or service without the prior written consent of…' Estée Lauder. Ms Malone and her husband, Gary Willcox, stayed on with the UK business in a management and creative capacity until 2006 when the two parted ways with Estée Lauder. Ms Malone subsequently established the fragrance brand Jo Loves in 2011.
In the current claim, Estée Lauder also alleges trade mark infringement and passing off. It owns various Jo Malone trade marks for perfumes, cosmetics, candles and lotions, which Ms Malone's use, in the context alleged, could infringe. The key questions will be whether Ms Malone's use creates a likelihood of confusion amongst the public and/or takes unfair advantage of the distinctive character or reputation of the trade marks that Estée Lauder owns, without its consent.
English law provides that no-one can claim monopoly rights in a word or a name. However, when it comes to passing off, no-one may, by the use of a name, represent their goods or services as the goods or services of another person so as to cause injury to their goodwill and/or business. If Ms Malone's actions gave rise to a false message which would be understood by a not insignificant section of the fragrance market to mean that the goods advertised have been endorsed, recommended or are approved by Jo Malone Ltd and/or Inc, she may have a problem.
On whether Ms Malone had consent, there appears to be an ongoing disagreement about whether Estée Lauder had previously allowed use of 'Jo Malone CBE' in 2020. This previous complaint is alleged to have been resolved by correspondence between legal representatives in May 2024 with Ms Malone agreeing to cease use of Jo Malone in relation to her Jo Loves business activities.
How far do name rights really reach?
The short answer is far. The 1999 agreement would have been a sophisticated transaction with legal representation on both sides.
A decision to sell the rights to your own name requires careful consideration because restrictions curtailing its future use can have a widespread impact on your ongoing commercial activities. Ms Malone continues to be restricted by the fine detail of the terms of her agreement with Estée Lauder. If the agreement is interpreted as broadly restricting use of Jo Malone in any commercial context, Ms Malone will only be able to use it in a purely personal capacity.
As part of the Zara x Jo Loves collab, both Ms Malone's name and CBE were used on a credit line on product packaging. Only time will tell if this was enough to satisfy the terms of the agreement. In October 2023, Jo Malone distanced itself from Ms Malone after a close member of the Willcox family was linked to a political group, with the brand issuing a statement on X: 'Jo Malone the individual has not been affiliated with the Jo Malone London brand since 2006'. The fact they did not refer to her as 'Jo' or 'Joanna Willcox' would suggest that this was not envisioned as a requirement of the 1999 agreement.
Delay vs reputation
Malone's team's arguments are likely to take the position that she was referring to herself as an individual – thus bringing the credit line language within the terms of the agreement. Her defences to the breach of contract, trade mark infringement and passing off claims may well therefore converge.
She and her legal team will be looking to argue: 'I was referring to myself by a name I have always used. Use of "CBE" in the context made it clear that I was referring to myself as Jo Malone the individual'. The proximate use of 'founder of Jo Loves' further clarifies this as Jo Loves is an established brand that Malone is associated with.
Team Malone will likely say there was no breach of contract, no misrepresentation or false message of endorsement (passing off) and that the use complained of was simply use of her own name in accordance with honest practices – a defence to trade mark infringement under Section 11(2)(a) of the Trade Marks Act 1994.
Both sides will no doubt be trawling through social media accounts to illuminate us on the vox populi on these key arguments. Already Team Estée Lauder claim there is evidence of the press, social media commentators and influencers describing the Jo Loves goods as a collaboration between the parties.
What this means for founders selling their name
Selling your name as part of selling your business may seem logical at the time and can be lucrative. However, Karen Millen and Elizabeth Emanuel are both quoted as regretting losing the rights in their names after selling their businesses, and Ms Malone herself has also cited regrets. Those who do sell out must stay within the terms of the deals that they strike or seek to take back the right. Whether a takeback is intentional or involves pushing the boundaries of the original deal to gauge the ferocity of the response, it is likely to be costly.
Sarah Mountain is partner in the IP and Technology team at RPC
No comments yet