
Wedding Dress Box Company
Two battling gypsy bells dress makers are squaring up in cloister for a big fat “feud” over claims of “stolen” designs.
["970"]
Dress artist Thelma Madine, brilliant of Channel 4’s Big Fat Gypsy Weddings , claims her above arch designer, Leanne Phillips, has “copied” one of her “game changing” behemothic bells dress designs, and acclimated it to barrage a ambit of collectable ceramics figurines.
Ms Phillips, 35, additionally appeared on the hit TV appearance and was advanced hailed by Ms Madine as a above “creative force” at her Liverpool-based traveller dress architecture shop, Nico.
But the brace fell out abominably in 2012, afterwards Ms Phillips was sacked and went on to set up her own battling dress architecture shop, Leanne Alexandra, additionally in Liverpool.
Ms Madine, 65, is now suing Ms Phillips and her mum Pauline Phillips - a above administrator at Nico - claiming they ripped off one of her best iconic designs to accomplish one of their own dresses.
She additionally claims the brace acclimated her designs to actualize the “Crystal Princess Figurine,” one of a ambit of seven collectable ceramics figurines of girls in ample dresses, which they planned to bazaar in Ireland and beyond.
But Ms Phillips and her mum abjure the accusations, insisting their dress - and the baby - are aboriginal designs and that Ms Madine is the one accusable of copying.
Their barrister, Ashton Chantrielle, told the cloister that an “ongoing feud” had erupted amid the above accompany and artistic ally afterwards Leanne was sacked in 2012 and auspiciously sued Ms Madine for arbitrary adjournment in an application attorneys in 2013.
Leanne had gone on to “successfully set up a battling business,” she said.
["730.41"]
The allegations of artful centre about a dress fabricated for a traveller helpmate declared Chenise McCarthy by Leanne in 2014, the architecture of which, Leanne and her mum say, was the base for the “Crystal Princess” ceramics figurine.
Ms Madine’s lawyer, Thomas St Quintin, told the High Cloister that Leanne’s dress and the baby ripped off important elements of Ms Madine’s iconic “Fan Dress,” a authentic cottony conception fabricated up of amid 30 and 50 abstracted pieces, which was declared in Ms Madine’s adventures as “The bold changer.”
The Fan Dress was advised in July 2011 by Leanne and Ms Madine alive calm and drew afflatus for its “wow factor” from a 1950’s Christian Dior dress, the cloister was told.
As able-bodied as insisting that the Fan Dress was affected by Leanne, Ms Madine claims Pauline “stole” architecture assets from Nico, and acclimated them to accredit her babe to actualize the dress for Chenise.
Those assets had been created by Ms Madine back Chenise had appear to Nico for an beforehand consultation, afore ultimately demography her custom to Leanne, she says.
Mr St Quintin attacked Leanne and Pauline’s denials that they pirated the Chenise dress architecture as “frankly ludicrous.”
But Miss Chantrielle told the adjudicator that Leanne and her mum say that Ms Madine in actuality affected the architecture from them.
She said: “The body of Ms Madine’s case is that Pauline Phillips blanket the declared Chenise dress assets from Nico and gave them to Leanne.
["993.28"]
“This is denied. Pauline never took any assets ... and Leanne gives bright affirmation of how she came up with the Leanne Dress and how she never had afterimage of the declared Chenise dress drawings,” she added.
“It is accustomed that the Leanne Dress is agnate to the declared Chenise dress design. However, it is not accustomed that it was affected by Leanne Phillips. It was advised by Leanne Phillips.
“Leanne capital to actualize a new architecture for Chenise, but befitting in band with the fan detail from the Christian Dior dress as Chenise had originally wanted.
“The declared Chenise dress architecture is a absolute archetype of the Leanne Dress. If any architecture rights do subsist in the design, they accord to Leanne Phillips.”
Ms Chantrielle additionally denied that Leanne’s dress architecture is a rip off of Ms Madine’s Fan Dress.
She told the judge: “Leanne Phillips did not archetype the Fan Dress design. She brand to accomplish aboriginal dresses.
“Leanne Phillips did not architecture a dress that was agnate to the Fan Dress because she is motivated to architecture new dresses, as boldness is important to her and her clients. She accordingly advised a altered dress for Chenise.”
But Mr St Quintin, insisted: “The case adjoin Leanne is clear. She affected Ms Madine’s designs, and fabricated the dress. That was an commodity fabricated absolutely or essentially to Ms Madine’s designs, or one of them. The abnegation of artful is ridiculous.”
["475.3"]
He additionally apprenticed the adjudicator to abolish Leanne and Pauline’s affirmation that Ms Madine’s dresses are not adequate by architecture rights, due to “commonplace” appearance in their design.
Describing the dresses as ‘unique creations,’ he said: “Television producers absitively to accomplish a television programme about Ms Madine and her customers, because her dresses were so out of the ordinary,
“The actual ample dresses of Ms Madine’s design... are not, absolutely cannot be, commonplace.”
Ms Madine, in the attestant box, agreed that Leanne had been a “loyal employee” above-mentioned to their falling out.
She told the cloister Leanne had become a active “creative force” at Nico by 2011, saying: “Because of the appulse of the television programmes, I wasn’t there as much.”
She absolved the accusation that she had affected Leanne’s dress for her assets as “absolute rubbish”.
Judge Amanda Michaels has now aloof her accommodation on the case and is accepted to accord her cardinal abutting month.
["620.8"]
["291"]
["993.28"]

["713.92"]
