British perfumer Jo Malone CBE has urged changes to trademark rules after founders sell businesses that carry their names. In a recent CNBC interview with Steve Sedgwick, she questioned whether current law protects people from losing practical control over their own identities.
The call comes as more entrepreneurs sell eponymous brands, then face limits on using their names in future ventures. Malone’s comments reflect a growing debate in beauty, fashion, and consumer goods where a name is both personal and commercial.
A Founder’s Warning
“I feel the law needs to change actually… because people are selling their businesses with their names,” Ms Jo Malone CBE told CNBC’s Steve Sedgwick.
Malone sold her first company, Jo Malone London, to Estée Lauder Companies, later launching a new brand, Jo Loves. She has long spoken about the personal and legal tensions that follow when a founder’s name becomes an asset controlled by someone else.
Her experience mirrors a pattern seen across well-known labels. Designers and founders often sign away trademark rights as part of a sale. They then face strict limits on how and where they can use their names in new products, marketing, or partnerships.
The Legal Knot Around Personal Names
Under trademark law in the UK and US, personal names can function as trademarks. Those rights can be assigned or sold, often permanently. Buyers seek exclusive control to protect brand value and avoid consumer confusion.
Intellectual property lawyers say courts try to prevent situations where customers could mistake a new venture for the old brand. That concern drives non-compete clauses, naming restrictions, and narrow permissions for founders after a sale.
The result can be stark. A person may keep their legal name but be barred from using it on products in their former category. Contracts usually bind both the trademark and future commercial use of the name.
Consumer Clarity Versus Personal Identity
Supporters of the current approach argue that clear ownership avoids misleading shoppers. If a founder leaves, the acquirer still needs to assure buyers that quality and sourcing are consistent. Strong trademark control lowers the risk of copycats or brand dilution.
Founders counter that these deals can leave them silenced in their own field. Malone’s comment highlights the imbalance when success depends on a name, yet control passes to a buyer, sometimes for decades.
The tension is sharpest in beauty and fashion, where a name signals taste and authorship. A strict ban can restrict how a creator earns a living, even when they want to enter a different price point or product line.
What Reform Could Address
Policy options discussed by attorneys, dealmakers, and founders include steps that protect both clarity for consumers and fair use of identity:
- Clearer limits on perpetual bans, replacing them with time-bound restrictions.
- Safe-harbor rules for using a personal name with added qualifiers to prevent confusion.
- Mandatory disclosures when a sold brand no longer involves the original founder.
- Stronger standstill terms focused on direct competitors, not entire categories.
These ideas would still let buyers preserve brand value. But they could reduce lifetime restraints on founders who want to start again.
Dealmaking And Industry Impact
Investors note that certainty drives valuations. If buyers lose exclusive control of a name, they may pay less. That could reshape how acquisitions are priced and negotiated.
On the other hand, fair-use carve-outs might encourage more entrepreneurs to sell, knowing they retain limited rights to their names. Some private equity advisers say clearer rules could cut legal disputes and lower enforcement costs.
Several high-profile founders have launched new labels under different names to comply with old contracts. Those workarounds add marketing cost and can confuse loyal customers who follow the person, not just the logo.
What To Watch Next
Malone’s remarks add pressure to a long-running debate. Trade groups, deal lawyers, and consumer advocates have floated reforms that balance identity rights with market clarity. Any change would likely come through case law, updated guidance, or targeted legislation.
For now, founders are urged to negotiate at the start. Experts recommend specific terms on how a name can be used later, clear time limits, and precise product scopes. Buyers want certainty; sellers want identity. The best contracts try to give both sides workable paths.
Malone’s call for change puts the issue back in the spotlight. If rules shift, future deals could look different, with new standards for personal names in brand sales and clearer signals for consumers about who stands behind a product.
