‘If I can not be me, who on earth am I meant to be?’: Emotional Jo Malone says she’s ‘shocked and really unhappy’ as she’s sued for £200K by Estee Lauder for utilizing her title on Zara perfumes

Jo Malone said she is ‘surprised and very sad’ after being sued for more than £200,000 in damages over the use of her own name on perfumes for Zara.

Estee Lauder Limited – which owns brands M.A.C, Bobbi Brown, Estee Lauder and Jo Malone London – took the legal action over claims the fragrance entrepreneur infringed trademarks.

Malone sold her perfume empire to the US cosmetics giant for millions in 1999 – but has since called it the ‘worst decision of my life’ because it blocked her from using her name for commercial reasons. 

She launched her own business after her non-compete clause expired in 2011, calling it Jo Loves, which sells £35 perfumes in a collaboration with Zara. 

Estee Lauder took issue with the wording on the packaging, which calls the products ‘a creation by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves’. 

Court documents revealed Jo Malone Ltd and Estee Lauder ‘expect to recover more than £200,000’ in damages. 

Speaking for the first time since the claim, Malone posted an emotional video on social media today defending the use of her own name.    

‘My name is Jo Malone. I am the person, the fragrance creator, the entrepreneur, the cancer survivor, the person,’ she said. 

‘Where do we go from here? If I can’t be me, who on earth am I meant to be for the rest of my life?’ 

She added: ‘I am sure many of you are aware, several weeks ago, the Estee Lauder companies actually issued High Court proceedings against me. I never expected to receive a High Court claim with my name on it. 

‘Truly I was, and am, in this minute very surprised and very sad.’ 

A spokesman for Estee Lauder previously said Malone agreed ‘to clear contractual terms that included refraining from using the Jo Malone name in certain commercial contexts, including the marketing of fragrances’ in the 1999 sale. 

Malone added today: ‘This claim isn’t just against me, it’s against Zara as well. The reason they have brought this High Court case is because of my creative work with Zara. 

‘Seven years ago I started to work with Zara. They approached me. They didn’t approach a company, they didn’t approach a brand, they didn’t approach a logo. They approached me: Jo Malone, the person, and asked whether I would start working with them and create beautiful fragrances that everyone could wear in the world. 

‘We have gone above and beyond, and above and beyond again, to make sure everyone understands this has nothing to do with Jo Malone London the company, this is very much Jo Malone. 

‘By using Ms, Jo Malone CBE, Jo Malone creative director of Jo Loves, we’ve literally done as much as we possibly can to ensure, we’ve trained the staff, everything. What more could we do, what more could I do?’ 

Malone said she is now ‘putting together our defence’, which will become ‘public knowledge’ once handed in. 

‘If necessary, I will defend my position and my innocence in court, although, because this is the person I am, I hope sense will prevail, and we will find a new and different way of being able to work in the same marketplace,’ she said. 

‘I’d like to thank you very much for listening to me. It’s taken me several weeks to be able to talk about this because I really thought long and hard what I wanted to say.’

She added: ‘I sold a company – I did not sell myself.

‘Where do I go from here? Who can I be? I can’t stop being a person. Nobody can stop being the character and the person that you are.’ 

Jo Malone Ltd and Estee Lauder are also requesting an injunction to force Malone to ‘withdraw whatever purported permission she had granted’ to ITX to use the Jo Malone name. 

Mark Vanhegan KC, for Estee Lauder and Jo Malone Ltd, previously said in court documents that the Jo Malone brand, which has more than 100 stores, counters and outlets in the UK, generated net sales worldwide of more than $990million last year.

He said that in early 2024, Malone began using the name ‘Jo Malone’ and ‘Jo Malone CBE’ in relation to Jo Loves products.

Estee Lauder and Jo Malone Ltd complained about this in April that year, claiming it breached the terms of the 1999 sale agreement.

The barrister said Malone and Jo Loves agreed the following month to stop using the ‘Jo Malone’ name on its products and withdraw them from sale, as well as other phrases such as ‘created by Jo Malone’, which was visible on the Jo Loves website.

But Mr Vanhegan said Malone and Jo Loves ‘have continued to use the Jo Malone trademarks in relation to the Jo Loves business’, adding they had ‘refused to accept or acknowledge that the acts complained of… constitute registered trade mark infringement, passing off or breach of contract’.

The barrister later said that on an unknown date, Zara began selling ‘a budget range of scents, fragrances, hand creams, skin creams and scented candles products’ using the name ‘Jo Malone’, which had been promoted by the businesswoman.

He said these were ‘low-cost, budget products which undermine the claimants’ reputation for luxury and exclusivity’.

Mr Vanhegan added: ‘Such use allows the respective defendants to benefit from the fame and reputation of the Jo Malone trademarks without having contributed to the creation of that fame and reputation.

‘The defendants’ use of the signs thereby freerides on the claimants’ reputation for high-quality, luxury and exclusive fragrances for men and women.

‘The defendants and each of them have deliberately set out to take such unfair advantage of the Jo Malone trademarks.

‘The claimants have suffered loss and damage and, unless restrained by the court, will continue to suffer further loss and damage,’ the barrister concluded.