When Your Name Is No Longer Your Name

Estée Lauder is suing Jo Malone for using her own name. She is not the first founder to face that fight.

“My name is my name.” Marlo Stanfield, “The Wire”

Estée Lauder is suing Jo Malone, her Jo Loves fragrances brand, and the UK arm of Zara. The lawsuit alleges breach of contract, trademark infringement, and “passing off,” a doctrine under English law that addresses consumer confusion about the source of goods. When Malone sold her fragrance brand to Estée Lauder in 1999, she agreed to contractual terms that included not using the “Jo Malone” name in certain commercial contexts, including fragrance marketing. It might seem strange that a company can prevent someone from using their own name, but in branding, this happens more often than founders expect.

Jo Loves, Malone’s current brand, recently collaborated with Zara on a fragrance line. The packaging and online product descriptions include the phrase “Created by Jo Malone CBE, founder of Jo Loves.” Estée Lauder argues that the appearance of “Jo Malone” on these products goes beyond what Malone is permitted to do under the agreement, pointing to product listings on Zara’s UK website that it says could lead consumers to associate the fragrances with the Estée Lauder-owned label. For years, the two sides coexisted without dispute. Malone left her original brand in 2006 and launched Jo Loves in 2011, after her five-year non-compete expired.

The Pattern: Sell the Brand, Lose the Name

This situation is a recurring one in fashion and beauty, and I see it come up in my practice more than founders might expect. Founders who sell brands built on their own names give up not just products or formulas but also the right to use their names in future business. What follows is often years of creative workarounds, legal disputes, or both.

Joseph Abboud sold his menswear company, JA Apparel Corp., for $65.5 million in 2000. When he later tried to promote a new clothing line as “a new composition by designer Joseph Abboud,” a federal court blocked him. The court found this could confuse customers with the brand he had already sold.

Bobbi Brown sold her namesake brand to Estée Lauder in 1995. After leaving in 2016 and signing a four-year non-compete agreement, she carefully avoided using her full name in her new projects. Her lifestyle platform launched as JustBobbi. Her supplements were marketed as “created by makeup artist and entrepreneur Bobbi.” When the non-compete ended, she started a new brand called Jones Road. Not Bobbi Brown.

Kate Spade went further. After selling her handbag company to Liz Claiborne for $125 million in 2007, she gave up the right to use her name commercially. When she started a new footwear and handbag brand in 2015, she named it Frances Valentine. She even changed her legal last name to Valentine to create a clean separation.

Karen Millen sold the majority of her fashion label in 2004. When she later planned to launch a new line called “Karen,” the new owners challenged it, arguing that even a first name could trade on the original brand’s goodwill. The dispute went through settlement and further litigation.

The Gucci family faced a similar problem. Paolo Gucci wanted to use his own name on products he designed. A court ruled that using “Paolo Gucci” as a brand could confuse consumers with the famous Gucci house. Paolo was allowed to identify himself as the designer of products sold under a different, non-Gucci brand, but he could not use his name as the primary mark. A disclaimer was required, and his name could not be more prominent than the other brand on packaging or ads.

When a Found Fights Back: The Hayley Paige Story

Not every founder loses their name permanently. Bridal designer Hayley Paige Gutman signed a new contract with JLM Couture in 2011, when she was in her 20s. She gave the company broad rights to use her name, including “Hayley,” “Paige,” and any similar variation, for bridal products. Over the next decade, she gained more than 1 million Instagram followers and became one of the most recognizable names in bridal fashion.

When the relationship soured, JLM sued for trademark infringement, breach of contract, and control of her social media accounts. A preliminary injunction basically stripped Gutman of her Instagram account and her ability to design wedding dresses. For nearly four years, another designer created gowns under the “Hayley Paige” label while Gutman received nothing.

The case provided an important decision on social media account ownership. The court held that these accounts should be treated like any other property: who created them, and was ownership properly transferred? The court found that JLM never legally acquired ownership of the accounts Gutman set up with her own email and credentials.

In May 2024, Gutman settled the case during JLM’s bankruptcy proceedings in Delaware. She paid $263,000 to reclaim full rights to her name, her intellectual property, and her social media accounts. She launched a new bridal collection in 2025.

Gutman’s case is the rare exception. She got her name back. But it cost her four years, a six-figure settlement, and the emotional weight of watching someone else design under her name. As she later said, she was “really young and naive” when she signed that contract.

This is the conversation I have with founders before they sign agreements. The contract terms that feel like boilerplate amid the excitement of a deal are the same terms that determine whether a founder walks away with options or with nothing.

Can Naming a Brand After Yourself Actually Work?

After so many cautionary tales, it’s fair to ask: should founders ever put their own names on the door?

A personal name can be a powerful brand asset. Some of the most enduring companies in fashion and beauty are built on a founder’s name: Dior, Versace, Armani, Halston, Balenciaga. The personal connection creates a story, an identity, and a loyalty that’s difficult to replicate with an invented name. That emotional resonance is exactly why companies pay a premium for founder-named brands.

But the legal risks are real, and they can come to light even before a sale. If someone else is already using your name, or something close to it, in the same space you operate in, you may not be able to use your own name in business. In the US, trademark rights generally belong to the first person to use the name in commerce, not necessarily the person born with it.

For founders who do sell a brand built on their name, careful negotiation makes all the difference. Founders may be able to retain limited rights for personal use, carve out certain industries, or define exactly when identifying yourself as the creator crosses into commercial use. Most buyers will resist broad exceptions, since the name is often the most valuable asset in the deal, but everything is negotiable. The Gucci case offers a useful framework: there is a meaningful difference between using your name as the brand and simply identifying yourself as the creative force behind something new.

What Founders Should Consider

Every founder-named brand deal comes down to the same struggle. The founder wants to preserve some connection to their own name. The buyer wants assurance that they are getting the full value of the name they acquired. How that struggle is resolved depends on the deal structure, bargaining power, and the specifics of the contract.

The time to think about this is before you name the brand, not when you are negotiating a sale. Non-compete clauses and name restrictions may feel like standard contract language in the early days of a deal, but they can define the next chapter of a founder’s career. And today, digital assets like social media accounts add another layer. The Hayley Paige case demonstrated that courts are still working out who owns what online, and unclear contract terms can lead to costly disputes.

And it is not just the name. When a founder sells a brand, the deal often bundles the creative assets tied to it: original packaging artwork, campaign photography, textile designs, product imagery. These are copyright-protected works, and founders who do not think about them separately from the trademark may give up more than they realize. A founder who retains the right to use her name in limited ways but assigns all copyrights in her creative portfolio has lost something significant, even if it does not feel that way at the closing table.

The Takeaway

The Estée Lauder lawsuit against Jo Malone will test the limits of how founders can reference their own identities after selling trademark rights tied to their names. However the case is resolved, the underlying lesson is the same: a founder’s name is both deeply personal and commercially valuable. Before building a brand around your name, or agreeing to sell one, consider who will control it and what you may be giving up.

Thinking about building a brand around your name? I help founders understand the trademark and copyright implications and structure the right protections from the start. Get in touch.

References

“Estée Lauder Cos. Sues Jo Malone, Zara Over Jo Loves Fragrance Collab.” (March 12, 2026). The Fashion Law. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/estee-lauder-sues-jo-malone-over-zara-fragrance-collaboration/

JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud. https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ja-apparel-corp-v-890861283

Todd, S. (December 6, 2021). “Bobbi Brown left Estée Lauder to launch a startup where no one shuts her down.” Yahoo Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bobbi-brown-left-est-e-133041268.html

Chitrakorn, K. (2020). “Scrappy startup? Bobbi Brown on doing it her way with Jones Road.” Vogue.https://www.vogue.com/article/scrappy-startup-bobbi-brown-on-doing-it-her-way-with-jones-road

“Kate Spade Turns Kate Valentine, Demonstrates the Risks of the Personal Brand Name.” (2016). The Fashion Law. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/kate-spade-turns-kate-valentine-demonstrates-the-risks-of-the-personal-brand-name/

Finch, J. (June 24, 2004). “Karen Millen founders sell out to Oasis for £70m.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/jun/26/1

Poritz, I. (December 20, 2020). “Court Reviews Social Media Account Ownership in Hayley Paige Lawsuit.” The Fashion Law. https://www.thefashionlaw.com/court-reviews-novel-issue-of-social-media-account-ownership-in-hayley-paige-lawsuit/

Lawlor, J., Cooke, T., Rochford, R. & Lambert, M. (January 22, 2024). “Precedent-Setting Intellectual Property Win Receives Widespread Media Coverage.” Haynes Boone. https://www.haynesboone.com/news/articles/precedent-setting-intellectual-property-team-receives-widespread-media-coverage

This article is for informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The cases and examples discussed are based on publicly available information and are intended to illustrate general legal concepts. Every situation is different, and outcomes depend on specific facts and circumstances. If you have questions about protecting your name or brand, consult a licensed attorney.