“I sold a company, I did not sell myself.” That is how Jo Malone framed her response to the lawsuit being waged against her by Estée Lauder Companies over her use of “Jo Malone” in connection with the marketing of fragrances. The case – which centers on her use of phrases like “Created by Jo Malone CBE” on products from a collab between Zara and her brand, Jo Loves – is being advanced as a relatively straightforward matter of trademark infringement, breach of contract, and passing off. But it raises a more fundamental question: what, exactly, founders do give up when they sell their eponymous labels – and do those transfers capture the full commercial value of a founder’s identity?
The background is simple from a legal point of view – even if the implications are not. When Malone sold Jo Malone London to Estée Lauder in 1999, she transferred the trademark rights in her brand name. Like many founders of eponymous brands, she retained her identity – but not full freedom to use it in a commercial capacity.
That distinction sits at the center of the dispute. Estée Lauder argues that 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.” Meanwhile, in a heavily-publicized statement on Instagram, Malone characterizes the case in more fundamental terms, stating that “those collections were created by me, the person, the identity, the human, nothing more, nothing less,” and positioning her use of her name as an expression of authorship rather than a violation of contractual limits.
The Line Between Name & Identity
At its core, the dispute turns not only on the terms of the parties’ 1999 contract, but on whether attribution itself has become a form of branding in a founder-driven market – one that exposes a mismatch between contractual limits on commercial use and the realities of personal identity. And Malone is not alone. Similar disputes have played out across fashion and beauty. After selling her business, Karen Millen faced limits on her ability to use her name in connection with competing goods, with courts in the United Kingdom emphasizing that the goodwill attached to a brand can evolve and in practice, extend the reach of contractual restrictions over time.
At the same time, the stateside dispute between designer Hayley Paige Gutman and JLM Couture showed that those limits are not absolute. In that case, which followed Gutman’s departure from the JLM-owned company bearing her name, courts distinguished between the commercial uses of her name governed by contract and her underlying rights in it.
Taken together, these cases (and others like them) highlight a critical point: while trademark rights in a name can be transferred, they are not always cleanly separated from the individual behind them. They also suggest that those rights are often tested – and at times, reshaped – long after the initial deal is signed.
Is the Name the Most Valuable Asset?
These disputes often rest on the assumption that a founder’s name is among the most valuable assets a brand owns – something worth tightly controlling through contract and trademark law. But market dynamics suggest a more complicated reality. Founder identity can drive early attention and lend credibility to a new venture, particularly in fashion and beauty. But long-term brand value is typically built on product performance, pricing, and positioning; not on the allure of a founder alone. In that sense, a founder’s name may function less as a core asset and more as an accelerant – powerful at launch, but less determinative over time.
That raises a more pointed question: are companies expending significant legal effort to control an asset that may not, in practice, be the primary driver of value?
Against that backdrop, a growing number of founders are choosing not to build brands around their own names at all. Instead, they are adopting structures that separate the brand from the individual – allowing founders to remain visible and influential without tying the company’s long-term value to their personal identity.
The approach is already common in many industries and is increasingly visible in beauty and fashion, where brands are designed to scale – and be sold – without the complications that can come with transferring a person’s name.
THE BOTTOM LINE: The Jo Malone dispute is not just about whether she can describe herself as the creator of a fragrance. It is about how far contractual control over a name can extend – and whether that control aligns with how value is actually created in the modern consumer market. While rights in a name can be sold, the identity behind it is far more difficult to control and may never be fully captured by the deal that purports to transfer it.
Share
