Now I can say that I feel SORRY for rainover.band.
Yesterday, the owner of a venue where we are going to play received an email from rainover.band containing a string of lies and misrepresentations, which I will refute below, and also stating that holding a concert by my band at her venue could have legal consequences.
Is what they say true?
Short answer: no, as it is written, it is NOT true. There are false, exaggerated, and legally incorrect statements.
There is no final judgment declaring that I am misusing the identity of rainover.band. There is no conviction for impersonation. There is no prohibition on the use of the name in force. There is no ruling that says my band “is not Rainover.”
It has not been legally proven that I voluntarily abandoned the project. I already said in my first statement that they subtly kicked me out of the band without wanting to talk to me in person, without apologizing for their disrespect, and without wanting to negotiate conditions for me to stay.
There is also no resolution stating that I lost the rights to use the Rainover trademark because I changed musicians. There was no agreement among the members stating that I could not register the trademark individually. Everything else is assumption, opinion, and speculation.
They accuse me of specific dishonest conduct. They present it as a proven fact. They communicate it to a professional third party (the court).
The name: I have it registered. After they lost two appeals and an appeal to a higher court in which they specifically mentioned the works and the supposed majority with which they say they can prohibit me from even breathing. In addition to completely ignoring my registration of Rainover as a European trademark.
The songs: I am the co-author and composer of many of them. They themselves put it in the scripts.
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (ALL INITIATED BY ME JUSTIFIABLY):
❌ First proceeding: regarding the use of my keyboards in playback; (according to them, regarding the rights to the songs):
I withdrew. There is no conviction. Only costs for withdrawal. There is no firm declaration of exclusive ownership of the songs by rainover.band. There is no general prohibition on use. The merits of the case were not addressed, so there is no ruling stating that they can sequence my keyboards in playback whenever they want.
❌ Second proceeding: about requesting precautionary measures to stop them from using the brand due to the confusion generated and their acts of alleged unfair competition (we lost our agency because we sent a certified letter with content similar to that of the email I mentioned):
The latest order does NOT confirm bad faith. It does NOT condemn in the sense that they say. It only dismisses precautionary measures. There is NO final ruling declaring bad faith. The latest order does NOT condemn, does NOT address the merits of the case, does NOT declare bad faith.
Incidentally, this court considers it RELEVANT that the band RAINOVER was founded in 2003 (when none of its members were in the band), and not in 2011 as the band has been claiming from the outset.
IS THIS SUPPOSEDLY UNFAIR COMPETITION?
👉 Yes, there are very serious grounds for unfair competition (Articles 4, 5, and 9 of the LCD):
Act of confusion: they lead the venue to believe that I am acting illegally.
Act of denigration: they accuse me of bad faith, impersonation, and non-existent convictions.
Contractual interference: they contact the venue to sabotage a concert.
It is the eve of the concert. It is done to third parties. Misrepresented judicial data is used.
Does the venue face “legal consequences” as they say?
❌ NO
The venue:
Has hired an artist with a registered trademark.
Has not received any court order.
Is not a party to any proceedings.
👉 All of this is pure intimidation to get the venue to cancel our concert.
Clear conclusion:
This email:
❌ Contains false statements.
❌ Misrepresents court rulings.
❌ Accuses me of bad faith and non-existent convictions.
❌ Seeks to scare the venue.
ARTURO HERNÁNDEZ
RAINOVER