It is always sad when toyland turns ugly but there are times when even the saccharine world of Barbie must be beset by conflict. Mattel, the maker of Barbie, has launched a legal battle against MGA Entertainment Inc, the maker of Bratz dolls, contending that it owns the rights to Bratz because the designer created the concept while he was employed at Mattel.

Obviously the lawsuit is about money, money, money but, cruelly, it also exposes Barbie's mid-life crisis. There you are one minute, queen of the toy store with a hourglass figure, sensible frock and ballet shoes and the next there's a pouty-mouthed pretender nudging at your throne who has a skinny, bare midriff, hair extensions, fishnet stockings and doubtless an ambition to marry a footballer.

Sales of Barbie in the US in the last quarter are down 12 per cent despite efforts to rev her up a bit. Bratz, argue many, is the more culturally relevant doll.

God help us. If I were Mattel's top bod I'd want nothing to do with these creepy mannequins which seem to be simply oversized, doe-eyed baby faces on pubescent bodies that are dressed up in hookers' clothes. They sit around in hot tubs wearing skimpy bikinis and mixing drinks while the “Boyz” play guitar. Last year Michele Elliot, of the child protection charity Kidscape, said Bratz were “little sexualised creatures which give the wrong message to kids”.

I'll say - unless you think it's OK to suggest to five-year-olds that a trout pout is normal. At least Barbie espoused wholesome values. She was a one-woman man (Ken), she kept her belly button covered and she always saw the sense in wearing a headscarf when driving an open-topped car. They just don't make them like that any more.

Times recommends

• How to solve the big style questions
• Aids in Africa: ‘It is the staff who really inspire you’
• Video: How to do Beyonce's 'Single Ladies' dance