By allusions in the new communiqué of rainover.band:
Arturo says:
1.- I founded the project in 2003 together with 2 other people who are no longer with us and we brought into it 3 of the members who are now in rainover.band. So I don’t need the consent of any of the members of the other formation to apply for the trademark that represents the project I founded, today called Rainover, before Remembrances, and before In memoriam.
2.-There are two dossiers from 2013 and 2014 made by “Ms Vídeos” where she herself wrote that Rainover was founded in 2003 and that all the repertoire from the previous stage such as Remembrances belongs to the Rainover stage. And that the first Rainover album is called Crystal Tears, which I wrote.
3.- Given the situation of confusion among the followers of both formations and the acts of unfair competition by the other formation (we lost our agency; this was bad faith), I formally asked them, having been granted the Spanish and European registration, to stop using the Rainover trademark. This was not an act of bad faith. This was an act to defend my trademarks, so that they would stop blocking my training through defamatory communiqués and burofaxes, and to try to prevent further confusion among the public. Faced with their refusal, I had no choice but to ask for injunctive relief prior to a lawsuit.
Yet another triumph they score.
What was the first triumph: that they can continue to playback my keyboard playing whenever they want instead of finding a competent keyboardist to re-record those keyboards? Great triumph.
What is this new triumph, that there are still two Rainovers confusing people, and one of them doesn’t have a single trademark?
4.- I didn’t leave the band voluntarily. I was made to leave without wanting to meet in person to talk about anything: neither about common works, nor about the brand, nor about anything. So I understood that everyone was free to protect their own interests.
If I applied for the trademark, it was to protect the project that I founded, in which I was putting each one of them under conditions that were nothing like those that reigned in 2023, and in which I composed most of the songs (music), which I shared jointly in the Intellectual Property Registry with members who did not compose any of those songs.
5.- In the resolution published by rainover.band, the only thing that stands firm is that precautionary measures will not be adopted before a lawsuit. All the rest are indications, assumptions, and opinions without having gone into the substance of the matter, without having taken into account the context of the actual founding of the project, nor the context of the break-up of the band, and without being clear about the expiry date of the trademark (it was not in January 2024, but in December 2021).
By the way, there are still 20 days of appeal left….. but of course, rainover.band is not going to tell you that, because then the ‘triumph’ will be deflated…
Publishing this on networks has no other intention, as was the case with the previous communiqué, than to point the finger at me and prejudge me by saying what is of interest and omitting what is not, thus receiving insults from his followers, before there has been a trial.
6.-On the other hand, the Spanish trademark expired on 1 December 2021, i.e. 10 years from the date of application in 2011. The Trademark Law establishes that a trademark lapses (regardless of the date on which notice of lapse is given) after 10 years from the date of application. The date of revocation is one thing, the notification of revocation is another.
This shows that I did not apply for the spanish trade marks immediately after the expiry (1 December 2021). I did it 3 AND A HALF MONTHS after the break. The office notified the revocation at the same time as I applied for the trade mark, in January 2024.
7.- Finally, nobody has given me anything for free. I have had to fight in the administration and there has been an opportunity for both parties to do so, rejecting all the allegations of the other party. The administration is protected by the TRADEMARK LAW. So I don’t know when I was outside the law.