The Axe Effect !!

Unable to attract even a single girl, frustrated man sues Axe

New Delhi. In what could prove to be a major marketing and legal
embarrassment for Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL), a 26-year-old man
has filed a case against the FMCG company, which owns the Axe brand of
men grooming products, for ‘cheating’ and causing him ‘mental
suffering’. The plaintiff has cited his failure to attract any girl at
all even though he’s been using Axe products for over seven years now.
Axe advertisements suggest that the products help men in instantly
attracting women.

Vaibhav Bedi, the petitioner, also surrendered all his used, unused and
half-used deodorant sprays, perfume sticks and roll-ons,
anti-perspirants, aftershaves, body washes, shampoos, and hair gels to
the court, and demanded a laboratory test of the products and narcotics
test of the brand managers of Axe. Vaibhav was pushed to take this step
when his bai (maid) beat him with a broom when he tried to impress her
after applying all the Axe products. cid:image010.gif@01CA2192.E9691400

No girl ever asked Vaibhav to call her

No girl ever asked Vaibhav to call her

“Where the **** is the Axe effect? I’ve been waiting for it for over
seven years. Right from my college to now in my office, no girl ever
agreed to even go out for a tea or coffee with me, even though I’m sure
they could smell my perfumes, deodorants and aftershaves. I always
applied them in abundance to make sure the girls get turned on as they
show in the television. Finally I thought I’d try to impress my lonely
bai who had an ugly fight with her husband and was living alone for over
a year. Axe effect my foot!” Vaibhav expressed his unhappiness.

Vaibhav claims that he had been using all the Axe products as per the
company’s instructions even since he first bought them. He argued that
if he couldn’t experience the Axe effect despite using the products as
directed, either the company was making false claims or selling fake

“I had always stored them in cool and dry place, and kept them away from
direct light or heat. I’d always use a ruler before applying the spray
and make sure that the distance between the nozzle and my armpit was at
least 15 centimeters. I’d do everything they told. I even beat up my
5-year-old nephew for coming near my closet, as they had instructed it
to keep away from children’s reach. And yet, all I get is a broom
beating from my ugly bai.” Vaibhav expressed his frustration.

Vaibhav claims that he had to do go a lot of mental suffering and public
humiliation due to the lack of Axe effect and wants HUL to compensate
him for this agony. An advocate in Karkardooma court, who happened to
mistake Vaibhav for some deodorant vendor when he entered the court
premises with all the bottles, has now offered to take up his case in
the court. HUL has been served a legal notice in this regard.

HUL has officially declined to comment on the case citing the subject to
be sub judice, but our sources inform that the company was worried over
the possible outcomes of the case. The company might argue that Vaibhav
was hopelessly unattractive and unintelligent and didn’t possess the
bare minimum requirements for the Axe effect to take place. Officially
HUL has not issued any statement, but legal experts believe that HUL
could have tough time convincing the court.

“HUL might be tempted to take that line of argument, but it is very
risky. There is no data to substantiate the supposition that
unattractive and unintelligent men don’t attract women. In fact some of
the best looking women have been known to marry and date absolutely
ghoulish guys. I’d suggest that the company settles this issue out of
court.” noted lawyer Ram Jhoothmalani said.

People who liked this, will love to read this as well : Laws on Girls !! @


  1. Nov 4, 2009 Lalit K. Jain, Esq. (NY, USA) This is the one historically correct, and thus the best, not just better, answer. It will help the Plaintiff (victim) of Defendant (victimizer) win the case and also help correct the incorrect Constitutional Law, Order and Government (CLOG) system that is 24/7 truthless just as designed by our ancestors. The proof is in the pudding. Truth speaks for itself. [1] In 1887, a Court wrote: “The law recognizes the fact that men will naturally overstate the value and qualities of the articles which they have to sell. All men [even buyers] know this, and a buyer has no right to rely upon such statements.” [2] In 1889, the legendary Justice Holmes wrote: “The rule of law is hardly to be regretted, when it is considered how easily and insensibly [sellers] words of hope or expectation are converted by an interested [buyer] memory into statements of quality or value when the expectation has been disappointed.” [3] In 1913, the legendary Justice Learned Hand wrote: “There are some kinds of [sales] talk which no sensible man takes seriously, and if he does he suffers from his credulity [gullibility, naivete, innocence, etc.]. If we were all scrupulously honest [credible], it would not be so; but, as it were, neither party usually believes what the seller says [to the buyer] about his own opinions and each knows it. Such statements [before sale], like the claims of campaign managers before election, are [not] designed to . . . be understood as having any relation to objective truth [sold].” The world will find these, and more, in the soon-to-be-published minibook titled “Justice Autopsy(tm)” that includes the sure cure for the sick CLOG system. Thanks. The sick CLOG system is so sick, it is psychosomatic. Courts will not use the law to jail-without-bail the top job guy (HUL CEO) for making the corporate policy for selling lying ads that are sold for millions by top ad giants with their top job guys making millions just to fool both men and women to attract the other relying on lying ads and paying for buying lying ads and lying products. Why? Because doing that will be serious and will fix the sick system. Why? Because then courts will also have to use the law to also jail-without-bail both the top, and also the bottom, Judges, together, for selling lying judgments that are belied by evidence to the contrary. That’s why. Any Questions? LKJESQ@LKJESQ.COM

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: