“A Creation by Jo Malone CBE”: Why the Estée Lauder Lawsuit Is a Wake-Up Call for Every Founder Who Builds Under Their Own Name

Jo Malone is back in court and this time, it is not over a fragrance formula. It is over six words on a piece of packaging.

According to reporting by the BBC and the Financial Times, Estée Lauder Companies has sued British perfumer Jo Malone, her new brand Jo Loves, and Zara’s UK arm over a fragrance collaboration that launched in 2019. The lawsuit, filed in the UK, alleges trademark infringement, breach of contract, and passing off. The issue? Packaging that reads: “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.”

On its face, that sentence sounds innocent, even accurate. Jo Malone is a CBE. She did found Jo Loves. But in the world of trademark law, accuracy is not the test. What you agreed to is the test. And my read on this case is clear: Jo Malone is in the wrong, and Estée Lauder is right to enforce.

Here is why.

What Jo Malone Actually Sold in 1999

When Estée Lauder Companies bought Jo Malone London in 1999, the deal included something that founders often underestimate: the right to her own name for commercial use.

Under the terms of that agreement, Jo Malone agreed not to use the “Jo Malone” name for commercial purposes, specifically including the marketing of fragrances. She has publicly said she regrets selling those rights. That is a real, human regret, and many founders will feel it. But regret does not rewrite a contract she signed, accepted compensation for, and abided by for years.

Why “Jo Loves” Does Not Solve the Problem

The argument you might expect from Jo Malone’s team is the obvious one: “The perfume is branded Jo Loves, not Jo Malone. Different brand, different name, no harm done.”

That argument falls apart the moment you look at the packaging. “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves” is marketing copy. It trades directly on the fame, goodwill, and consumer recognition attached to the Jo Malone name, the very asset Estée Lauder paid for in 1999. When a fragrance leans on the “Jo Malone CBE” tagline to sell bottles, it is very hard to argue consumers are not making that connection.

That is the whole point of the claim. And that is why “but it says Jo Loves on the front” is not the defense people think it is.

The Opinion: Jo Malone Agreed to This

I say this with real respect for what Jo Malone built. Her original brand helped define an entire category of British fragrance. Founders like her deserve admiration. But admiration is not a legal defense.

She signed the 1999 agreement. She accepted the purchase price. She knew, or her advisors knew, what she was giving up. And for years, she honored it. A collaboration that puts “A creation by Jo Malone CBE” on a product sold at scale through Zara is a commercial use of the exact name she agreed not to commercially use in this category.

Estée Lauder is not bullying a small founder. They are defending an asset they bought in good faith, an asset whose value depends entirely on the enforcement of the promises that made it an asset in the first place.

What This Means If You Are Building (or Selling) a Brand

If you are a founder, creative, or small business owner reading this, here is what I want you to take away because this story could be about any of us someday.

1. Your name is a separate asset from your company. If you build a personal brand, your name and your company’s name may be the same word but legally, they can be sold, licensed, or restricted independently. Know which you are giving up before you sign.

2. “Founder of…” language is not a safe harbor. Using your own name as a credit line on a competing product can still trigger trademark, breach-of-contract, and passing-off claims. Courts look at commercial effect, not grammar.

3. Pay attention to category and geography. Jo Malone’s restriction zeroed in on fragrance marketing. That specificity cuts both ways it defines what she cannot do, but also what she could be free to do. Negotiate these clauses narrowly and precisely on the way in, not after.

4. Carve-outs belong in the original agreement — not in a lawsuit. If you think there is any chance you will want to come back to the category someday, negotiate carve-outs for future ventures before closing. After the ink dries, the only person with leverage is the buyer.

5. If you already sold your name, get advice before the comeback. Before launching, collaborating, or even writing your bio for a new product, have a trademark attorney pressure-test the plan against your original sale agreement.

A Final Thought

The Jo Malone case is not a story about a villain. It is a story about a contract and a reminder that the most valuable thing a founder signs away in an acquisition is often the thing she cannot imagine wanting back: the right to use her own name.

If you are building a personal brand, preparing to sell, or exploring a collaboration that flirts with the terms of a deal you already signed, do not guess. Ask. The cost of a one-hour legal review is almost always less than the cost of being named a defendant.

---

Have a question about a name-use restriction, a brand collaboration, or a trademark concern? Colella Legal Studio helps small business owners, creatives, and founders protect what they build and avoid the pitfalls that come with selling or licensing a personal brand. Schedule a consultation and let’s make sure your next move holds up.

This post reflects the author’s legal commentary on publicly reported matters and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Allegations described are based on public reporting and have not been proven in court.