When a creator loses the right to their own name: a brief reflection on the Jo Malone case

The recent dispute involving British perfumer Jo Malone brings to light an interesting legal question: is it possible for someone to be prevented from using their own name in commercial activities?

In the late 1990s, the perfumer “Jo Malone” sold her brand to Estée Lauder, transferring the rights to the name “Jo Malone” in the fragrance market. According to press reports, the agreement established specific restrictions on the use of the name “Jo Malone” in certain commercial contexts, with the founder receiving financial compensation for this assignment.

Years later, the perfumer created a new brand, “Jo Loves.” More recently, she began collaborating with Inditex, the group behind Zara, developing fragrances that were promoted using expressions such as “created by Jo Malone.”

This gave rise to the dispute. Estée Lauder filed a lawsuit in the UK alleging trademark infringement, breach of contract, and passing off under UK law. The company argues that the recent use exceeds the agreed limits and could undermine the value of the brand built over decades, as reported e.g. by the BBC and the Financial Times.

The controversy highlights a key point: although a personal name is a personality right and legally protected as such, it may also take on a commercial nature when used as a trademark. In this context, once assigned, it becomes subject to the contractual rules established between the parties.

In the case at hand, by transferring the “Jo Malone” trademark, the perfumer assigned her economic rights and undertook to comply with limitations regarding the use of that name in specific commercial activities, particularly in the fragrance segment. This is a direct consequence of a contract freely entered into by the parties. In other words, Jo Malone chose, in exchange for financial consideration, to assign the right to use her trademark, which is her own name.

It is important to note that this limitation does not imply the loss of the right to one’s name as a personal attribute. Jo Malone remains free to identify herself publicly by her civil name. What is restricted is its use for commercial purposes in sectors covered by the agreement. By using expressions such as “created by Jo Malone” on competing products, even if seemingly descriptive, there is a risk of creating an undue association between the current trademark owner, Estée Lauder, and Inditex, as if the two companies were engaged in some form of partnership or shared business relationship.

In this sense, the use of one’s own name may cease to be neutral and begin to generate an undue competitive advantage, particularly when it evokes a reputation already established in the market, a reputation that, legally, has become part of a third party’s assets, in this case, Estée Lauder.

From the perspective of Brazilian law, the outcome would likely be similar. The legislation allows for the assignment of trademarks, including those that coincide with a personal name, and it is legitimate to impose restrictive clauses regarding their future use. In such cases, use in breach of contract may constitute contractual default and even unfair competition, especially if there is a likelihood of consumer confusion.

The case also reflects an increasingly common reality: the transformation of a personal name into an economic asset. In a context where creators, influencers, and entrepreneurs build high-value personal brands, the decision to assign the use of one’s own name requires heightened caution. More than an element of identity, the name becomes part of market strategies, subject to limitations that may last for years.

Thus, the dispute involving Jo Malone serves as a warning: when a name is turned into a trademark, and especially when it is assigned, the owner not only monetizes an asset but also assumes significant restrictions. Ultimately, it is a delicate balance between personal identity and economic exploitation, largely defined by the terms agreed upon in the contract.