Inditex's U.K. unit says Estée Lauder's lawyers in 2020 approved the very language now at the center of the lawsuit
NurPhoto / Getty Images
Zara's U.K. parent company ITX has filed a defense in the U.K. High Court against Estée Lauder's trademark infringement lawsuit, arguing the wording it uses for perfumer Jo Malone on fragrance products follows principles that Estée Lauder's own lawyers set out in 2020.
The March lawsuit names Jo Malone, her fragrance house Jo Loves, and ITX as defendants, with Estée Lauder taking aim at the appearance of Jo Malone's name on fragrances the three parties have developed together. At issue are two specific uses of Jo Malone's name: her inclusion in product listings on Zara's website, and the phrase "Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves" printed on the back of fragrance packaging.
ITX's filing points to a 2020 dispute as context: Estée Lauder objected that August to a Weibo post on Zara's China account that featured the name "Jo Malone." When Estée Lauder's legal team replied that October, they cleared the Weibo usage and went further, issuing a set of guidelines governing future references to Jo Malone — acceptable formulations included "Jo Malone CBE," "Ms Jo Malone," "Ms Malone," and "Jo," with a prohibition on describing her as the founder of the Jo Malone fragrance brand. ITX said the packaging and website language at issue in the lawsuit conforms to those principles.
Beyond the trademark question, ITX pushed back on two other elements of Estée Lauder's case: the allegation of "passing off" — a legal concept referring to conduct that causes consumers to mistake one party's goods for another's — and the description of its fragrances as "budget" products. Titles in the Zara range — among them "Energetically New York," "Elegantly Tokyo," and "Fashionably London" — carry a £35.99 price tag for 100ml on the retailer's U.K. site, a fraction of the £122-and-above entry price for Jo Malone London scents in the same size, according to Reuters.
Jo Malone's own legal team also entered a defense this week, WWD reported, characterizing the Estée Lauder lawsuit as without merit and asserting that nothing in her prior agreement with the company strips her of the right to identify herself by her own name. Addleshaw Goddard and The Ebury Partnership, acting for Malone, drew attention to the timing of the lawsuit, pointing out that Estée Lauder was aware her work with Zara had been underway since at least late 2019 yet held off on raising any objection for more than five years, until April 2025.
The roots of the dispute go back to 1999, when Estée Lauder acquired Jo Malone's perfume company along with the commercial rights to her name. After her departure from Estée Lauder in 2006, she eventually founded Jo Loves in 2011, with the Zara partnership following eight years later. The company has said that Jo Malone agreed at the time of the 1999 sale to refrain from using her name in certain commercial contexts, including the marketing of fragrances.
An Estée Lauder spokesperson declined to comment on ITX's defense filing and referred to the company's March statement. Inditex also declined to comment.
Join 500,000+ readers who start their day with Quartz.
By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
