LONDON — Lawyers for perfumer Jo Malone have mounted a defense in the U.K. High Court to a lawsuit filed by the Estée Lauder Cos., refuting allegations of trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract.
As reported in March, Lauder initiated legal proceedings against Malone, founder of the Jo Malone brand; her fragrance house Jo Loves Ltd.; Jo Loves (Wholesale Ltd.), and ITX UK Ltd. (formerly Zara UK Ltd.) for using her name on products unrelated to the Jo Malone London brand.
Lauder purchased Malone’s eponymous fragrance business in 1999 and she left the company in 2006. Following a five-year non-compete clause, Malone started the Jo Loves fragrance brand in 2011.
That brand has a store on Elizabeth Street in London, and Malone continues to work as a fragrance consultant for brands, individuals and companies, including Zara. She began collaborating with the Inditex-owned retailer in 2019, creating a line of fragrances.
Documents filed this week described Lauder’s claim as “hopeless,” and said the fact that Malone uses her own name to identify herself, and the products she makes, creates zero confusion with the Lauder-owned Jo Malone London brand, is not in breach of contract or the cause of any confusion.
“Ms. Malone retains the absolute right to use the Jo Malone name in a personal capacity, including use as a description or to identify herself,” the documents said.
“There is no risk of detriment to the functions of the Jo Malone [London] trademarks and no material risk of confusion. Even if some inattentive consumers would wrongly make a connection with Jo Malone London, that is the consequence of the claimants’ choice to trade for many years under a name shared with a famous perfumer, so does not warrant the court’s intervention and must be tolerated,” the documents added.
The Zara Emotions Collection by Jo Loves, created by the perfumer Jo Malone.
Image Courtesy of Zara
Malone’s lawyers at Addleshaw Goddard and The Ebury Partnership also argued the claim of passing off fails “because there is no relevant misrepresentation or risk of damage to the claimants’ goodwill.”
The lawyers said that, following the end of her five-year noncompete with Lauder, Malone is allowed to engage in a business that competes with Jo Malone London, and to use her name to identify herself when doing so.
Malone’s defense also questions why Lauder is suing now, rather than when Malone launched Jo Loves or when she began working with Inditex.
“Ms. Malone has been using her own name to identify herself in promotional material connected to her Jo Loves business for over 14 years, but the claimants did not complain to her about such use until March 2024. The claimants have been aware since at least November 2019 of Ms. Malone’s collaboration with Zara, but did not complain to her until April 2025.”
The latest filing also sets out to clarify that Jo Malone, the person, is a well-known figure in the U.K., with an identity that’s separate from the brands she founded.
“Ms. Malone is known to the public in the United Kingdom by the name Jo Malone. Through her use of that name, she has built up a very substantial reputation as a public figure. That personal reputation is independent of that of Jo Malone London,” it said.
Jo Malone London’s English Pear & Freesia fragrance.
Over the years, Malone has worked extensively with Zara, creating a range of fragrances at different price points that sell alongside the retailer’s in-house scents.
Some of the Zara fragrance packaging says: “A collection created by Ms. Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves,” with her signature. Other packaging says: “A collection created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves,” also with Malone’s signature.
CBE refers to the honor, Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, that Malone received in 2018 from the Prince of Wales, now King Charles III.
Malone was given the honor for her contributions to the fragrance industry, her work as an entrepreneur, shopkeeper and mentor to students and small and medium-size enterprises.
In March, Lauder said “Ms. Malone’s use of the name ‘Jo Malone’ in connection with recent commercial ventures goes beyond [their] legal agreement and undermines Jo Malone London’s unique brand equity. 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.”
Jo Loves Tuberose body mist.
Richard Valencia
Since Malone’s departure from the group, Lauder has invested significantly in Jo Malone London, opening more than 4,200 points of sale across 84 markets globally. That company, which has more than 4,000 employees, is based in London at a Grade II listed Georgian townhouse near Baker Street, a venue it also uses for events throughout the year.
Malone and her lawyers declined to comment on the latest legal proceedings.
In April, in response to the suit, Malone posted an Instagram video, introducing herself as “the person, fragrance creator, the entrepreneur, the cancer survivor.” She said: “I never expected to receive a High Court claim with my name on it. And truly I was, and am, in this very minute, very surprised and very sad.”
She also questioned why the Estée Lauder Cos. has taken legal action against her now, arguing it “doesn’t make any sense at all. If it was wrong now, it would have been wrong on Day One and nobody did anything about it,” Malone 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 continued: “I sold a company, I did not sell myself. I didn’t sell what was up there, what’s in here and my future. That I didn’t sell and never would. So now the simple truth is those collections were created by me, the person, the identity, the human, nothing more, nothing less.”
In a follow-up statement sent exclusively to WWD, Malone said: “It is my sincere hope that this matter can be resolved respectfully, allowing all parties to move forward and focus on the work we each care so deeply about. In the meantime, I will be robustly defending the High Court claim.”
