Jo Malone Reflects on the High Price of Selling Her Name to Estée Lauder

British perfumer Jo Malone, who created the Jo Malone London fragrance label in 1990 and sold it to the Estée Lauder Companies nine years later, says the agreement that made her a millionaire also left her unable to use her own surname in future ventures. Speaking on CNBC’s “Executive Decisions” podcast, the 62-year-old entrepreneur described signing away the commercial rights to her name as the single part of the 1999 deal she still regrets.

Malone’s contract transferred the brand, all associated trademarks and the goodwill linked to her identity to the New York–based beauty conglomerate. Under United Kingdom trademark rules, the buyer of a name-based enterprise normally secures exclusive control of that name for similar goods or services to prevent consumer confusion. Legal specialists note that attempting to operate a competing firm under the same or a similar name would typically breach contract terms or constitute “passing off,” a longstanding doctrine in British law.

Because of those restrictions, Malone’s subsequent businesses rely only on her first name. Her luxury fragrance house Jo Loves, launched in 2011, and her recently introduced spirits line Jo Vodka deliberately omit her surname to avoid infringing the Estée Lauder trademarks. While the original sale provided significant personal wealth, Malone said relinquishing her full identity in the commercial arena remains “the hardest thing” she has faced as a founder.

Intellectual-property attorney Simon Barker, head of the IP practice at law firm Freeths, told CNBC that contractual clauses generally override other rights. Once a seller agrees not to use a name for competing products, the purchaser can enforce that promise indefinitely unless the contract specifies an end date. Barker added that entrepreneurs can negotiate softer terms—such as time-limited or geographically limited non-compete periods—but buyers often place a premium value on keeping the original name attached to the brand.

Malone believes the current framework needs revision. She argued that a permanent prohibition on using a personal name amounts to a “lifelong non-compete” and called for lawmakers to examine how such covenants operate when founders sell companies built on their identities. Her comments echo the experiences of other UK creatives who discovered they could not trade under their own names after exiting their businesses.

Fashion designer Karen Millen, who sold her eponymous label in 2004, later sought to launch new ventures bearing her surname but was blocked by contractual and trademark barriers. Similarly, Elizabeth Emanuel, known for co-designing Princess Diana’s wedding gown, lost control of her name after transferring her company; courts subsequently confirmed that the new owners held exclusive rights to the “Elizabeth Emanuel” mark.

Imagem: Internet

The issue extends beyond the United Kingdom. In the United States, makeup artist Bobbi Brown sold her cosmetics company to Estée Lauder in 1995 and signed an agreement preventing her from using her name in any way that might compete with the brand. While U.S. law features a “right of publicity” that guards against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person’s identity, experts say contractual obligations can still bar founders from deploying their names in overlapping product categories.

According to guidance from the UK Intellectual Property Office, parties can structure a sale to preserve certain naming rights, but doing so often reduces the purchase price because buyers view a founder’s name as a core asset. Barker noted that sellers should obtain specialist advice, map out future business plans and consider requesting scaled-down restrictions that might allow use of the name in unrelated sectors or after a defined cooling-off period.

Malone urged aspiring entrepreneurs to weigh emotional and professional factors alongside financial considerations when negotiating acquisitions. She stressed that immediate monetary gain can come at the expense of long-term creative freedom. While acknowledging that Estée Lauder might not have agreed to the transaction without exclusive control of her surname, Malone said she now advises founders to “think through all the implications” before finalizing any deal that severs them from their own identity.

Crédito da imagem: CNBC