Estee Lauder sues perfumer Jo Malone for breach of contract

US cosmetics giant Estee Lauder Companies has filed legal action against perfumer Jo Malone, her new fragrance brand and Zara’s UK business for using her name. British entrepreneur Jo Malone sold her eponymous perfume brand and name rights to Estee Lauder Companies in 1999 and stepped down as creative director in 2006. She was bound to a restrictive non-compete contract for five years and a block on her using “Jo Malone” for commercial reasons. Malone is now being sued by Estee Lauder for breach of contract, trademark infringement and “passing off” — a term in English law that refers to misleading consumers into thinking that goods or services are connected to another business. Malone, who grew up on a council estate in Barnehurst, south-east London and now lives in Dubai, has said that she regretted signing her name away and called it the “biggest mistake of my life” in several interviews. After her non-compete clause expired in 2011, Malone set up a new perfume brand, Jo Loves. Last year Jo Loves launched a new affordable perfume collaboration with high street retailer Zara. The perfume’s packaging includes the wording “A creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves”. It is the use of “Jo Malone” on Zara’s packaging that has formed the basis of Estee Lauder’s lawsuit, which was filed late on Wednesday (Mar 11). Malone is not the first founder to sell their name rights. Make-up artist Bobbi Brown also sold her eponymous brand to Estee Lauder and has since set up “Jones Road”, while handbag designer Kate Spade legally changed her own name to Kate Valentine to align with her new brand after forfeiting name rights in a sale to Liz Claiborne in 2007. A spokesman for Estee Lauder Companies told the Financial Times that it had invested substantially in the brand over the past 25 years to expand it internationally. “When Ms Jo Malone sold the brand to The Estee Lauder Companies in 1999, she agreed to clear contractual terms that included refraining from using the Jo Malone name in certain commercial contexts, including the marketing of fragrances,” the spokesperson said. “She was compensated as part of this agreement, and for many years, she abided by its terms. Ms Malone’s use of the name ‘Jo Malone’ in connection with recent commercial ventures goes beyond that legal agreement and undermines Jo Malone London’s unique brand equity.” The spokesperson added: “We respect Ms Malone’s right to pursue new opportunities. But legally binding contractual obligations cannot be disregarded, and when those terms are breached, we will protect the brand that we have invested in and built over decades.” Ashley Armstrong © 2026 The Financial Times. This article originally appeared in The Financial Times.