Estee Lauder Takes Legal Action Against Jo Malone Over Trademark Use

Fragrance entrepreneur Jo Malone is facing legal proceedings brought by Estee Lauder’s parent company, with damages of more than £200,000 being sought over allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, and breach of contract. High Court documents confirm that Estee Lauder Europe and Jo Malone Limited have filed claims against Ms Malone personally, her brand Jo Loves, and ITX Limited, the entity trading as Zara.

Ms Malone originally sold her eponymous fragrance brand to Estee Lauder in 1999, before establishing the Jo Loves brand in 2011. Her recent collaboration with high-street retailer Zara, for which she developed a range of budget fragrances and related products, has become central to the dispute. Lawyers acting for the claimants argue that use of the “Jo Malone” name in connection with these commercial activities constitutes a direct infringement of registered trademarks acquired as part of the 1999 transaction.

Court documents reviewed by the Press Association indicate that the claimants expect to recover in excess of £200,000 through their claim. Beyond the financial remedy, Estee Lauder and Jo Malone Limited are also seeking an injunction compelling Ms Malone to withdraw any permission she may have granted to ITX to utilise the Jo Malone name in connection with its products.

Mark Vanhegan KC, acting for the claimants, stated in court documents that the Jo Malone brand, which operates more than 100 stores, counters, and outlets across the United Kingdom, generated global net sales in excess of USD 990 million in the preceding year. The scale of the business underscores why the claimants regard the protection of their trademark as commercially critical.

According to the barrister, the difficulties began in early 2024, when Ms Malone commenced using the names “Jo Malone” and “Jo Malone CBE” in relation to Jo Loves products. Estee Lauder and Jo Malone Limited raised formal objections in April of that year, asserting that such use was in direct contravention of the terms governing the original 1999 sale agreement. The defendants reportedly agreed the following month to cease using the “Jo Malone” name across product lines and to withdraw relevant items from sale, together with associated phrases such as “created by Jo Malone,” which had appeared on the Jo Loves website.

Despite this agreement, Mr Vanhegan submitted that Ms Malone and Jo Loves had continued to employ the Jo Malone trademarks in relation to the Jo Loves business, and had declined to acknowledge that their actions constituted registered trademark infringement, passing off, or breach of contract. The claimants contend that the defendants’ conduct amounts to freeriding on the substantial reputation that Estee Lauder has cultivated around the Jo Malone brand, without having contributed to the establishment of that reputation.

The Zara collaboration has attracted particular criticism in the court filings. Mr Vanhegan described the range, which includes fragrances, hand creams, skin creams, and scented candles, as “low-cost, budget products” that undermine the claimants’ carefully maintained reputation for luxury and exclusivity. The barrister argued that the defendants had deliberately sought to exploit the fame associated with the Jo Malone trademarks for commercial advantage, causing ongoing financial loss to the claimants and risking further damage should the court decline to intervene.

As of the time of reporting, neither Ms Malone, Jo Loves, nor ITX Limited had filed a formal defence to the claim. The case is expected to test the boundaries of post-sale trademark obligations and the extent to which a founder retains rights to use their own name following the commercial disposal of a brand built upon it.