Stock Markets May 8, 2026 04:58 AM

Zara's UK Unit Rejects Estee Lauder Claim Over Use of 'Jo Malone' Name

ITX says its wording follows principles communicated by Estee Lauder in 2020 as dispute over trademark and product descriptions moves through High Court

By Derek Hwang

Zara's UK subsidiary ITX has filed a defence in the UK High Court denying it infringed The Estée Lauder Companies' trademark rights in relation to the use of the name 'Jo Malone' on product descriptions and packaging. ITX says its current product wording adheres to guidance previously provided by Estee Lauder's lawyers in 2020 and raises the broader question of how Jo Malone may refer to herself given the cosmetics group's rights.

Zara's UK Unit Rejects Estee Lauder Claim Over Use of 'Jo Malone' Name

Key Points

  • ITX, the UK subsidiary of Zara owner Inditex, has filed a defence in the UK High Court denying it infringed The Estée Lauder Companies' rights in the use of the name "Jo Malone".
  • ITX says its use of the name on Zara product descriptions and packaging follows principles communicated by Estee Lauder's lawyers in 2020, which outlined acceptable forms of reference for the individual Jo Malone.
  • The dispute raises questions about how Jo Malone may refer to herself commercially given Estee Lauder's trademark, and ITX rejects allegations of "passing off" and the label of Zara's perfumes as "budget" products; the Zara fragrances are priced at 35.99 pounds per 100ml versus Jo Malone products at 122 pounds and above for the same volume.

Zara's UK arm, ITX, has told the High Court it did not infringe The Estée Lauder Companies' rights to the name "Jo Malone" and that the wording it uses on Zara fragrances complies with parameters the cosmetics group outlined in 2020.

The case centres on the use of the words "Jo Malone" in product descriptions on Zara's website and the inscription "Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves" on the back of the perfumes' packaging. Estee Lauder acquired the Jo Malone fragrance business and the rights to use Jo Malone's name in 1999. Malone subsequently left the company in 2006 and founded a new fragrance label, "Jo Loves", in 2011, before entering a collaboration with Zara in 2019.

ITX's defence, as set out in filings seen by the court, disputes allegations that the company has overstepped the boundaries of permitted usage of the name. A spokesperson for The Estée Lauder Companies declined to comment directly on the ITX defence filing, referring instead to the company's earlier statement when it commenced the suit in March asserting that Malone agreed in 1999 to "refraining from using the Jo Malone name in certain commercial contexts, including the marketing of fragrances".


Background to the 2020 guidance

ITX's filing recounts communications from August 2020 in which Estee Lauder raised a concern about a post on Zara's official Weibo account in China that used the "Jo Malone" name. According to ITX, lawyers for the US-based cosmetics group responded in October 2020 that the particular use on Weibo fell within the allowed scope.

At that time, ITX says, Estee Lauder's legal advisers also proposed a set of principles to govern Zara's references to Jo Malone. Those principles, ITX states, suggested Zara should use forms such as "Jo Malone CBE," "Ms Jo Malone," "Ms Malone" or "Jo" when mentioning the individual, and should avoid describing her as the founder of the fragrance brand Jo Malone. ITX contends the wording appearing on its perfume packaging and on Zara's website is in accordance with these principles.


ITX raises the question of self-reference

In its defence, ITX frames a broader legal question about how Malone "can fairly and legitimately refer to herself" in commercial contexts given the trademark rights held by Estee Lauder. ITX reports that the current wording used in Zara's product descriptions reads: "In collaboration with perfumer Ms. Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves."

Malone has addressed the matter publicly on social media. ITX's filing notes that Malone posted a video statement on her personal Instagram account last month asserting that her collaboration with Zara began seven years ago, that Zara approached her personally, and that the project is distinct from Jo Malone London the company. The filing records Malone's comment: "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 ... we have gone above and beyond to make sure everyone understands this has nothing to do with Jo Malone London the company." Malone did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment referenced in the filings.


Denial of passing off and pricing details

ITX also rejects Estee Lauder's allegation of "passing off" - that Zara's perfumes mislead consumers into believing they are associated with Jo Malone London. The defence further disputes the lawsuit's characterisation of Zara's fragrances as "budget" products.

On Zara's UK website, the perfumes in the collaboration are listed under names such as "Energetically New York," "Elegantly Tokyo," and "Fashionably London," and are priced at 35.99 pounds for a 100ml bottle. The filings note that Jo Malone perfumes retail at 122 pounds and above for the same volume.

Inditex, Zara's parent company, declined to comment on the ITX filing.

Currency note: ($1 = 0.7372 pound)


The case now turns on the extent to which the use of Jo Malone's name in descriptive text and on packaging falls within the scope of rights granted to The Estée Lauder Companies and the allowances, if any, provided at the time of prior communications in 2020. ITX's filing presents both a legal defence and a broader framing of how an individual subject to a trademark arrangement may reference her own identity when engaging in new commercial ventures.

Risks

  • Legal uncertainty over trademark scope - The case highlights legal ambiguity about permitted uses of an individual's name in product descriptions and packaging when a company holds trademark rights, potentially affecting the cosmetics and retail sectors.
  • Potential commercial and reputational impact - Depending on the court's interpretation, outcomes could influence branding and collaboration practices for perfumers and retailers, affecting the fragrance and wider fashion retail markets.
  • Ongoing litigation costs and restrictions - Continued legal action could impose financial and operational constraints on the parties involved while the dispute proceeds through the courts, with consequences for corporate strategy in the beauty and apparel sectors.

More from Stock Markets

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang Sees 27% Drop in Total Pay as Stock Awards Lose Value May 12, 2026 Activist Urges BWX Technologies to Revisit Shelved Reactor Plan, Sees Potential for Stock to Double May 12, 2026 S&P Moves Mexico’s Outlook to Negative, Citing Fiscal Strain and Tepid Growth May 12, 2026 Moody's Lowers Everforth Outlook to Negative Amid Elevated Leverage May 12, 2026 Moody's Moves Albemarle Outlook to Stable After Debt Cuts and Stronger Lithium Prices May 12, 2026