Simon Goldberg presents "You and Your Cash"

[Gregg]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

[jcolvin2]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

He outsmarted them by spelling "Jedii" with two "i"s!

[notorial dissent]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

He outsmarted them by spelling "Jedii" with two "i"s!

Yeah, he sure did, yup yup yup. I hope he lets us know how it all turned out when the Disney Gestapo come down on him with their hob nailed boots. Considering just how upset they get, read litigious, when someone "accidently" infringes on their copyright/trademark, what they do when it involves something illegal or borderline gives a whole new meaning to the term "over reaction", they make IRS Collections seem demure and benevolent by comparison.

[JohnPCapitalist]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

They won't do anything until they're aware of the problem. Anyone who wants to ruin Goldberg's day could drop a dime and send an email to tips@disneyantipiracy.com. They might be more motivated to act if they got emails from several people.

[SoLongCeylon]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

They won't do anything until they're aware of the problem. Anyone who wants to ruin Goldberg's day could drop a dime and send an email to tips@disneyantipiracy.com. They might be more motivated to act if they got emails from several people.

Done

[noblepa]

How long until the lawyers at Walt Disney take issue with his use of the term Jedi?

He outsmarted them by spelling "Jedii" with two "i"s!

Yeah, he sure did, yup yup yup. I hope he lets us know how it all turned out when the Disney Gestapo come down on him with their hob nailed boots. Considering just how upset they get, read litigious, when someone "accidently" infringes on their copyright/trademark, what they do when it involves something illegal or borderline gives a whole new meaning to the term "over reaction", they make IRS Collections seem demure and benevolent by comparison.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder does not vigorously prosecute against infringement, this gives the next infringer an argument in their defense that "you let them do it". That is why many companies are so litigious about their intellectual property.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the Bayer Company once owned a trademark on the name "Aspirin". They did not forcefully go after other manufacturers who used that name to describe their product. Bayer eventually lost the rights to "Aspirin" and it is now in the public domain.

There is another story that I know to be true. Do you have the fast food chain Arby's in the UK? I imagine you do. The name comes from their product roast beef sandwiches (R B, get it?).

Once upon a time, here in the US, there was a competing chain, also specializing in roast beef sandwiches. They chose the name Roby's. Again, a contraction of ROast Beef. Arby's sued them for infringement, even though the name was spelled significantly differently. Arby's argument was that Roby's was close enough to Arby's that some customers might be confused into thinking they were visiting Arby's. This was in the sixties, when Arby's was just getting started.

Arby's won the lawsuit and Roby's was forced to change their name. I don't know if he was a major stockholder or not, but the name they chose was Roy Rogers, after the forties/fifties cowboy star. When I was in high school in 1969, I worked at a Roy Rogers, and they still had the Roby's sign in the back room.

[MaritalArtist]

I don't think we have Arby's in the UK, but I have heard of them
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-mlPE8pxs4

[TheNewSaint]

IANAL, but it is my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder does not vigorously prosecute against infringement, this gives the next infringer an argument in their defense that "you let them do it". That is why many companies are so litigious about their intellectual property.

This is what I was taught in a "mass communications law for journalism majors" class. You are correct that this basically requires large intellectual property owners to be litigous dicks.

But they don't think you have to prosecute every single case. Especially for an IP as massive as Star Wars and an infringer as irrelevant as this. Hell, I doubt Disney could even locate every possible instance that needs defending. I doubt any court would rule that they don't protect their IP.

[Gregg]

He outsmarted them by spelling "Jedii" with two "i"s!

Yeah, he sure did, yup yup yup. I hope he lets us know how it all turned out when the Disney Gestapo come down on him with their hob nailed boots. Considering just how upset they get, read litigious, when someone "accidently" infringes on their copyright/trademark, what they do when it involves something illegal or borderline gives a whole new meaning to the term "over reaction", they make IRS Collections seem demure and benevolent by comparison.

IANAL, but it is my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder does not vigorously prosecute against infringement, this gives the next infringer an argument in their defense that "you let them do it". That is why many companies are so litigious about their intellectual property.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the Bayer Company once owned a trademark on the name "Aspirin". They did not forcefully go after other manufacturers who used that name to describe their product. Bayer eventually lost the rights to "Aspirin" and it is now in the public domain.

There is another story that I know to be true. Do you have the fast food chain Arby's in the UK? I imagine you do. The name comes from their product roast beef sandwiches (R B, get it?).

Once upon a time, here in the US, there was a competing chain, also specializing in roast beef sandwiches. They chose the name Roby's. Again, a contraction of ROast Beef. Arby's sued them for infringement, even though the name was spelled significantly differently. Arby's argument was that Roby's was close enough to Arby's that some customers might be confused into thinking they were visiting Arby's. This was in the sixties, when Arby's was just getting started.

Arby's won the lawsuit and Roby's was forced to change their name. I don't know if he was a major stockholder or not, but the name they chose was Roy Rogers, after the forties/fifties cowboy star. When I was in high school in 1969, I worked at a Roy Rogers, and they still had the Roby's sign in the back room.

You have a few historical facts wrong there. For reasons I won't go into, I know a lot more about Arby's than I care to normally admit. Arby's is a contraction of Raffel Brothers. There were a lot of similarities between Arby's and Roy Rogers, but they were not copies of one another, they actually started within a few months of each other. The chain originated as the rebranding of the RoBee's House of Beef chain of Fort Wayne, Indiana acquired by the Marriott Corporation in February 1968.

The last Cincinnati operator of Roy Rogers was a family named Romey and when they lost the rights, they converted their sign by changing the few letters to spell the family name. They then lost the lease on the store that hadn't been updated in decades, it didn't even have indoor restrooms, and after being gone for a few years built a new building.

The company that lost the lawsuit with Arby's was Rax Roast Beef.

[Tevildo]

IANAL, but it is my understanding that if a copyright/trademark holder does not vigorously prosecute against infringement, this gives the next infringer an argument in their defense that "you let them do it". That is why many companies are so litigious about their intellectual property.

There is a story, perhaps apocryphal, that the Bayer Company once owned a trademark on the name "Aspirin". They did not forcefully go after other manufacturers who used that name to describe their product. Bayer eventually lost the rights to "Aspirin" and it is now in the public domain.

You're right about aspirin, incidentally. Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co., 272 F. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1921).

Nothing would have been easier than to insist that the tablet makers should market the drug in small tin boxes bearing the plaintiff's name, or to take over the sale just as it did later. Instead of this, they allowed the manufacturing chemists to build up this part of the demand without regard to the trade-mark. Having made that bed, they must be content to lie in it.

[hucknallred]

The Dynamic Duo's latest wheeze to part you from your cash.

Let us get your mortgage written off if it's been securitised. No win no fee*.

https://www.youandyourcash.com/p/challe ... r-mortgage

* Apart from the £56.40 processing costs.

[mufc1959]

The Dynamic Duo's latest wheeze to part you from your cash.

Let us get your mortgage written off if it's been securitised. No win no fee*.

https://www.youandyourcash.com/p/challe ... r-mortgage

* Apart from the £56.40 processing costs.

If you first became aware of the Challenge by watching our videos, and if you would like YouAndYourCash.Com to be responsible for all the administrative and telephone support provided to you throughout the lifetime of your Challenge, then you must use the links which can be found running alongside the video series.

If you enter the code “YAYC00” you will also receive a £10.00 discount against the usual Challenge cost of £260.00. In other words, the Challenge will cost you £250.00 if you enter the code “YAYC00”, rather the usual £260.00.

If it is later shown that your Mortgage has not been securitised, and you have “no-case”, then you will be reimbursed the fee, less £56.40 processing costs. In other words, the maximum amount you pay to find out you have “no-case” is £56.40.

So what they're going to do, I surmise, is provide scripts and templates for the punter to use - in other words "administrative and telephone support" - to try to challenge the validity of their mortgage. It doesn't look as if Y&YC will be doing anything at all other than send out videos and emails.

[Siegfried Shrink]

A fine business model, especially as none of their challenges will work. People who actually know what they are doing will have made sure of that. I do despise con-men.

[Gregg]

As do I. And I hate greedy twits who think that they're so special they shouldn't have to pay back the money they borrowed because....reasons....

I think a good middle ground is to offer the same exact service (I'll take your money and do nothing) for half as much, to both put a crush on the scammer and still make sure the loser trying the newest woo is taught a lesson that won't ruin them but might provide an incentive to wise up. If nothing else, that money being absorbed into my ''hookers and blow fund'' is a better use of it than either of them could put it too.

[aesmith]

The scam's not quite a no win no fee basis, as I read it they keep your whole £250 initial fee if you're mortgage is securitised, whether or not that gets you anywhere (which it won't of course).

[Siegfried Shrink]

I suspect they would keep the money anyway, they are after all a criminal enterprise set up to defraud the unwary or greedy or both, ideally.
It can be hard to get refunds from some legitimate businesses, imagine how much harder it wouuld be with this bunch.

[Gregg]

I'm telling you, shoot me £35 PayPal and I'll send you a thank you note and tell you your mortgage was secularized*, no piddling around with the £250 and refund it which is a pain to keep track of, or not refund it, which just gets people to complain and hurts the grift.....

£35 and we're done.

I won't even bother to check, because virtually all mortgages are in fact resold and it won't make a bit of difference. On the off chance that I say it is, and you lose BECAUSE ITS NOT, then I will refund your money, minus a 10% restocking fee, and of course the mandatory 90 year waiting period to make sure your original payment has cleared and the Bank of England, who backed it, doesn't fail in the currency reset.

[grixit]

I once saw a cartoon that showed a man selling a book titled "Double You IQ or No Money Back!".

[JimUk1]

YaYC is for entertainment purposesly only, and shouldn’t be mistaken for sound financial advice by any rationale person-

From the website-

A fool and his money.....

. The content on this site is purely educational. It should not be construed as legal or financial advice in any way shape or form. If in doubt you should consult your legal and or financial advisor before embarking on any of the strategies outlined here.

Oh boy, where to start with this one?

. Testimonials Our aim is to be 100% honest at all times. If however you find something mentioned on this site which you do not find to be honest, please contact us straight away so we can investigate

[Burnaby49]

The content on this site is purely educational. It should not be construed as legal or financial advice in any way shape or form. If in doubt you should consult your legal and or financial advisor before embarking on any of the strategies outlined here.

Exactly the same legal disclaimer that Russell Porisky put on his tax evasion website. It was of no use whatever as evidence during his fraud trial and he ended up convicted in spite of it.