The plaintiff has cited his failure to attract any girl at all even though he’s been using Close-Up toothpaste for over seven years now. Close-Up advertisements suggest that the product helps men in instantly attracting women by letting their breaths out.
Anthony Olatunfe, the petitioner, also surrendered all his used, unused and half-used Close-Up tubes to the court, and demanded a laboratory test of the products. Anthony was pushed to take this step when his female boss slapped his face when he tried to kiss her after brushing his teeth with the Close-Up toothpaste.
“Where is the Close-Up 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 breath. I always brush my teeth with so much close up gel to make sure the girls get turned on by my fresh breath as they usually show on TV. “
Anthony claims that he had been using the toothpaste as per the company’s instructions even since he first bought them. He argued that if he couldn’t experience the Close-Up effect despite using the product as directed, either the company was making false claims or selling fake products.
“I had always stored them in cool and dry place, and kept them away from direct light or heat. I brushed my teeth morning and night. I did everything they instructed. I even beat up my 5-year-old nephew for coming near my toothpaste, as they had instructed to keep away from children’s reach. And yet, all I get is a slap from my boss.” Anthony expressed his frustration.
Unilever has officially declined to comment on the case citing the subject to be sub judice, but our sources inform that the company is worried over the possible outcomes of the case. The company might argue that Anthony was hopelessly unattractive and unintelligent and didn’t possess the bare minimum requirements for the Close-Up effect to take place. Officially Unilever has not issued any statement, but legal experts believe that they could have tough time convincing the court.
“Unilever might be tempted to argue that Anthony is too ugly to attract a girl, 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 unattractive guys. I’d suggest that the company settles this issue out of court.
Like seriously dis is pure madness,why on earth will u put the on closeup,who knw if ure ugly,badly dressed,mode of approach,nt loaded,am sure u hv bin kissing anybody kissable just bcos ure using closeup,bros them go slap u tire
ReplyDeletedat guy need to see a psychiatrist...
ReplyDeleteD guy is messed up in the head..mschewwww
ReplyDeleteThis is a sabbotage in †ђξ highest order,you must know that every biz in this world esp.Nigeria is always a competative one...my instincs never failed ♍ƺ so as for this is a handiwork of upcoming toothpaste producing company,they wanna offbalance and reduce Close-up customers.
ReplyDeleteSlap on the go, you never start. Ewu congo, that was just a marketing strategy and you where so dump to think it could get you a girl. I like see you sef make I slap you join
ReplyDeletehahaha i jst wish it was MTN that was sued...
ReplyDeleteI no fit laff ooooo. Mayb u shud try nd use jik 2 brush.
ReplyDeletena money making procedure, he gonna make millions from the case,such happens in america often,if they do advert on tv and and its not same as the advert when u use d product,u sue them and get money from them. there is a fast food called subway and they sell 6 foot long bread and they always advertise on tv dat their bread is 6 foot long,can u believe someone actually measure the length of the bread and sue the company to court that the bread is not exactly 6 foot long as they've been advertising ,that the bread is 5.9foot long. My guy ur money don come cos u go win the case.......companies in Nigeria need to be teach lessons mostly telecommunication companies
ReplyDeleteDis guy av a case according to carlil vs carbolic smokeball company (1892).
ReplyDelete