The recent UK High Court proceedings brought by Estée Lauder against Jo Malone, Jo Loves and Zara UK serve as a useful reminder that intellectual property agreements can have a long commercial afterlife.

In some cases, they may continue to shape a founder’s freedom to operate many years after the original deal was signed.

Estée Lauder acquired Jo Malone’s original perfume business, Jo Malone London, in 1999. The deal reportedly included rights relating to the “Jo Malone” name. After leaving the business, Malone later launched a new fragrance brand, Jo Loves, which has collaborated with Zara on a number of perfume ranges.

The current dispute appears to focus on how Malone’s name is used in connection with those products, including wording on packaging such as “Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves”. Estée Lauder has raised claims for trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract against Malone personally, Jo Loves and Zara UK.

Where personal identity meets commercial rights

The legal issue is not simply whether Malone can refer to herself by name. The harder question is whether using her name crosses the line into commercial use of a brand name that was sold as part of the original transaction.

If consumers are led to believe that Jo Loves, Zara’s fragrance ranges and Jo Malone London are connected, that may also raise passing off concerns.

For founders, the case highlights the particular difficulty of selling a namesake brand. A founder’s name can be both a personal identity and a valuable commercial asset. Once that asset is sold, the founder may find that future use of their own name is constrained in ways that were not fully appreciated at the time of exit.

Key drafting considerations for founders

The drafting lesson is clear. Agreements involving personal brands should spell out, in practical terms, what a founder can and cannot do after completion. Phrases such as “commercial use”, “marketing”, “association” and “promotion” require careful definition, particularly where the founder may want to launch a future venture in the same or an adjacent market.

The Jo Malone dispute is therefore more than a luxury fragrance story. It is a reminder that an IP deal should capture precisely what the parties intend to transfer, and exactly what is being retained.

In transactions involving namesake brands, the key question should be asked plainly at the outset: is the founder selling a business, a brand, or part of their personal identity?

The outcome of this case will be closely watched as the proceedings continue.