Jo Malone being sued for more than £200,000 in damages in trademark row

Fragrance entrepreneur Jo Malone and companies connected to her are being sued for more than £200,000 in damages over claims they infringed trademarks, High Court documents show.

Ms Malone sold her eponymous fragrance brand to Estee Lauder in 1999, founded the Jo Loves brand in 2011, and recently created perfumes for high-street retailer Zara.

Earlier this month, Estee Lauder Europe and Jo Malone Limited sued Ms Malone personally, as well as Jo Loves and ITX Limited, which trades as Zara, over allegations of trademark infringement, passing off and breach of contract.

In court documents seen by the Press Association, lawyers for Jo Malone Ltd and Estee Lauder said they “expect to recover more than £200,000” in damages through the claim.

They are also asking for an injunction to force Ms Malone to “withdraw whatever purported permission she had granted” to ITX to use the Jo Malone name.

Ms Malone, Jo Loves, and ITX are yet to file a defence to the claim.

Mark Vanhegan KC, for Estee Lauder and Jo Malone Ltd, 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 990 million dollars last year.

He said that in early 2024, Ms 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 that this breached the terms of the 1999 sale agreement.

The barrister said that Ms 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 that Ms Malone and Jo Loves “have continued to use the Jo Malone trademarks in relation to the Jo Loves business”, adding that 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 that these were “low-cost, budget products which undermine the claimants’ reputation for luxury and exclusivity”.

He said: “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.”

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

He added: “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.