The current dispute centers on how Malone’s name has been used in [the Zara] collaboration. Product packaging and descriptions reportedly included phrases such as “created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.” Estée Lauder argues that this constitutes trademark infringement, breach of contract, and “passing off,” suggesting it may confuse consumers into linking the products with Jo Malone London, the luxury brand it owns.
[...][Jo Malone] described herself as “surprised and very sad” to have received the High Court claim, confirming that she is preparing a legal defense and is ready to “defend [her] position and innocence in court.”
— Read more in “I Did Not Sell Myself”: Jo Malone Responds to Estée Lauder Lawsuit at BeautyMatter.
I follow JM on Insta, and the article supports what she’s saying. I wish EL had left her alone-I totally understand the difference. When JM sold her company she was fighting breast cancer, had lost her sense of smell, and thought her life would be much shorter. I get it-a deal is a deal, but the career she made for herself afterwards doesn’t hurt the EL corp at all. I wish her well in her future endeavours.
Totally agree with you, Carole. A shame some of the people commenting about this on assorted media outlets don’t appear to be aware of the whole story. I think the same as you re EL not being at all detrimentally affected by her working with Zara – you really can’t compare the two businesses when it comes to fragrance world-wide!
I’m going to be the outlier here. She didn’t sell herself but she did sell her name. Her name and more specifically her name having ANYTHING to do with perfume. She can still create perfume. She can start another perfume company. But, it can not say her name. She can call it Whisper Drift for all EL cares, but she can’t call it Whisper Drift by Jo Malone. It’s sometimes shocking when people who sell their company trademark get schooled on what that means in the long term. EL isn’t saying she can’t create perfume, but she’s still trying to trade off her name and legally, in the perfume world, it doesn’t belong to her anymore. And it hardly mattered that it’s Zara vs Malone London. We’re all a bunch of crazy perfume snobs😜, of course WE wouldn’t confuse the two. But we’re not who EL is concerned about. They’re concerned about the average person who buys a bottle of perfume and honestly doesn’t know the difference between the two companies and just sees the Jo Malone name. A name, which I’ll state again, she sold. It’s like Bobbi Brown selling her named makeup line. She started a brand new line called Jones Road. NOT Jones Road by Bobbi Brown. She sold the name in trademark, same thing. Jo M is going to lose, I’ll lay money on it.
Yep, I agree with you. Great example with Bobbie Brown.
I am with you, but she has a point that they took 7 years to react (mind you, she says that, I have no idea, nor do I have any idea if that has any legal bearing whatsoever).
The article, or Jo’s quote, isn’t very clear. She started JoLoves in 2011. Zara got involved in 2019. That seems to be the 7 yrs she mentions. But the quote “by Jo Malone from Jo Loves”, when was that added to the packaging? EL might not have had an objection to the original Zara collab, but when that tagline got added, that got their attention. Was that there starting at 7 years or was it added, let’s say, 2 years ago and now EL says stop? I don’t know about EU or Britain, but US companies must fight trademark infringement within an established number of years or they lose the TM.
It is not on the packaging that I can see in 2019 or 2024, not sure about 2026 (although also Zara has changed up their website since this lawsuit started, and they now describe her as “Ms. Jo Malone” which they did not do before, presumably to differentiate from the company “Jo Malone”) but they are definitely using her full name, as opposed to just “founder of Jo Loves”, in their descriptions and advertising.
ps the fact that I do not see it on the packaging is in no way meaningful, I just looked at a few images online. Might be on the back of the box, etc
She should have never sold her name.
She can buy it back. Other people have.
Robin, the blurb “a collection by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves” (or something like that) appears on the back of the boxes but I cannot recall if it was that way from the beginning of the Zara collab.
It seems to me that Lauder purchased “Jo Malone London” the brand, not Jo Malone the human being, and the inscription on the boxes makes it clear there’s no connection to the Lauder brand.
Also: Why now? Jo Loves was created after her non-compete clause expired. And the Zara thing has been in production for 7 years already. Don’t they have enough already? Vultures.
Thank you, I had a feeling that might be where they printed it.
From my understanding, while they did not purchase Jo Malone the person, they have exclusive rights to her name. Their no compete clause was for her to not bring out any fragrances at all until that was lifted. When Zara first announced their collaboration, I did think they meant Jo Malone the Estee Lauder brand, not the founder. Very easy to see the confusion.