Woman sues Prada after she couldn't get champagne splashes out of her £1,000 skirt - and wins

MELBOURNE woman has successfully sued luxury fashion label Prada because champagne stains on a £971 ($1660) skirt she wore once won't clean off, reports the  Australian paper, the Herald Sun.

Catherine Whitty  spent £971 ($1,660 in Australian dollars) on the silk skirt for her 40th birthday party, but a guest dampened the night by spilling French bubbly over the Italian creation.

Ms Whitty was surprised when her drycleaner said the stains couldn't be removed, and that any liquid - including rain or splashes from washing hands - would have damaged the delicate silk.

Catherine Whitty sued Prada over a champagne-stained skirt. Picture: Stuart Walmsley Source: HeraldSun

She launched tribunal action, arguing sales staff at Prada's flagship store on Collins St knew she was buying the piece for a champagne celebration and should have warned it was unsuitable.

Ms Whitty told the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal she'd chosen the A-line skirt because it was a timeless piece that she expected to wear many times.

The frequent Prada patron said she expected the garment would be fit for "common usage" and that she would be able to remove simple stains to allow for multiple outings.

The Princes Hill physiotherapist said she'd checked the washing instructions on the skirt before purchase, and the label said "professionally dryclean".

Ms Whitty said no Prada sales assistants had advised her the fabric would be irreparably damaged if alcohol - or water - were spilt on it.

Prada retail operations manager Albin Cheng said staff had proffered the skirt based on fashion, not what would be served at the party.

He argued the stains were not a fault of the garment, but of Ms Whitty's failure to take due care while wearing it.

"This was not caused by us," Mr Cheng told Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Ms Whitty's delay in taking the skirt for cleaning hadn't helped, he claimed.

The party host waited until Monday morning after the Saturday-night mishap in the belief her preferred shop was shut on Sundays.

Mr Cheng said a search of Prada's customer database revealed that four months after the party, Ms Whitty had bought another item of the same material, raising questions about whether she really did doubt its quality and wearability.

Ms Whitty told the tribunal she'd bought other silk items from Prada and was "usually a very happy customer".

Ms Whitty in the skirt at her birthday party. Source: HeraldSun

But she was highly dissatisfied at being able to wear the damaged skirt only once, and also by Prada Australia's handling of her complaint.

She said she'd spent several frustrating months trying to get the brand to respond to her concerns before launching tribunal proceedings.

Tribunal member Peter Moloney found in favour of Ms Whitty, and ordered Prada Australia refund the full £971 ($1660) to her.

Mr Moloney noted unless sold with a warning, garments were usually be expected to withstand some use and exposure to normal hazards of life such as spills or a rain shower.

For luxury authentic products & services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.net

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Content thanks:HeraldSun

Christian Louboutin wins case against anti-Islamic group

Christian Louboutin

CHRISTIAN LOUBOUTIN has won an injunction in Antwerp against Belgian activists Women Against Islamisation, an anti-Islamic group which used one of it's famous red soled shoes in advertising images without permission. The Belgian anti-Islam campaigners must remove all posters including imagery from the luxury foot wear company.

Thee campaign group Women Against Islamisation featured a image of a woman's legs wearing Louboutin heels with the distinctive red sole, visible on one of it's posters.

Women Against Islamisation unauthorised poster pic:AFP/GETTY

Beside the image of her wearing the shoes a key showed what it claimed was Islam's view of a woman, as measured by the length of her skirt, Words ranging from "Sharia compatible from "whore" just above the knee to "stoning" at the top of the thigh.

Women Against Islamisation unauthorised poster  pic:AFP/GETTY

The poster by the far-right Vlaams Belang shows a woman wearing the iconic red-soled stilettos.
The legs belong to Anke Van dermeersch, a senator from the party.
A judge at the Antwerp court has given the party 24 hours in which to take down the posters.

Miss Van dermeersch, a former Miss Belgium, called the decision a political ruling. Her party has issued another advert, this time with the senator lying down and wearing similar-looking, but yellow-soled stilettos.

Revised poster showing yellow sole and heel

Louboutin said it had not authorised the posters and said the original advert tarnished his image.

For luxury authentic products & services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.net

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Rihanna Sues Philip Green's Topshop for £3.5m over 'Ugly' T-shirt

Rihanna at the Grammys - suing Philip Green out of 'principle' (Reuters)

RIHANNA is reportedly suing high street fashion store Topshop over T-shirts that have an "unflattering" photo of her on them (23/05/13).

Now, I have struggled to find an ugly picture of the 25-year-old singer who has been reported as suing Sir Philip Green's company for £3.5m, High Court papers filed through law firm Reed Smith in March show.

She says that not only did Topshop use her picture without her permission, the image they chose makes her look ugly - the photo shows her with her hair tied up in a bandanna.

"The base image of the first claimant (Rihanna) is of such an unflattering nature that it would not be approved," the papers say.

Rihanna also takes issue with the quality of the T-shirts, saying both the image and the product "would not have been authorised by the first claimant".

'Unflattering' Topshop t-shirt of Rihanna

In UK law, the copyright of a photograph is owned by the photographer, not the person in the picture. Topshop also said it was allowed to use the image as it was taken in a public place.

The singer is said to be irritated at these laws and is pushing ahead with the lawsuit out of principle, not vanity.

A source said: "RiRi says it's the principle. She believes they are taking advantage of artists, that it's just exploitation and what they are doing is wrong."

Reports go on to say Green offered Rihanna, who is estimated to be worth £35m, £3,500 in compensation, which she turned down.

Should Rihanna win the lawsuit, it would be a landmark case as, at present, there is no "right of publicity" law in the UK.

In the US, however, this law prevents the use of a person's image or name for advertising or trade without their written consent.

All this took place whilst Rihanna was currently promoting her own fashion line with Topshop rival River Island (view that here). Which makes me wonder how much foul play is connected to this action, as the two have vied for celebrities but speaking about the collection, she said: "I made a piece for everybody in my crew, we all have different body types and different tastes.

Rihanna for River Island

"Some are braver than others, but, you know, I think like that because that's how all the women in the world are. We're all different, we all like different things, we all have different occasions, different moods, different body types."

For luxury authentic products & services; http://www.luxuryonlinestore.net/

Louboutin Tries To Stop Dior From Making Red-Soled Shoes

2nd fashion law suit begins! - This time Dior comes under fire as the legal fights continues......

Court papers filed on Tuesday show Louboutin got information from a private investigator who said Christian Dior was planning to launch a red-soled shoe collection next season. The PI was hired to find information on the YSL case, but instead found information about Dior. Louboutin will not press charges against Dior, and Dior denies the claims.

The case against YSL presses on, with remarks from both sides getting snippier by the second. YSL says:

“Louboutin’s trademark should have never been granted…We just don’t think that any fashion designer should be able to monopolize any color.”

While Louboutin’s team shot back and said the claim was “utter rubbish” and “unless you are living in a cave” the consumer recognizes a red sole as a Louboutin. But don’t worry, Louboutin doesn’t claim to own every red under the sun. Louboutin’s lawyer Harley Lewin said:

“We are not claiming to own every red under the sun. There’s a particular red that Christian uses on his shoes, a bright, lacquered red. We aren’t saying burgundy or orange-red, we aren’t saying pink. We don’t own any other red but that red.”

The case will be decided on Friday by New York judge Victor Marrero.

See the latest update on Louboutin's law suit with YSL

Via Getty Images / StyleBistro.com

RELATED ARTICLES

» Christian Louboutin Fights Carmen Steffens Red Soles 

» Victory for Versace in counterfeit & fake fashion ruling

» Christian Louboutin Loses Another Red Sole Lawsuit To Zara 

» Target’s Mossimo Messenger knockoff Proenza Schouler PS1 bag

» Jessica Simpson copyright Infringement with Christian Louboutin

» Christian Louboutin red sole battle with Yves Saint Laurent comes to a close