Yes. Strictly speaking, from a purely legal point of view, that is correct. But I think it is fair to make the argument that Tate had unjustly usurped the name, and the court merely allowed the status quo until it could be sorted out, so it really isn't "Queensryche" from an equitable point of view. Or, to put it another way, Geoff Tate never really was Queensryche, and didn't have control of the Queensryche entity. But he had the right to use the name for a limited period of time. I view it kind of like this: If I worked at McDonald's, but then I quit and opened up a restaurant serving low-quality meatloaf sandwiches, and I used the official McDonald's name and logo on my place, it wouldn't really be McDonald's, and everyone would know that. Let's say McDonald's then sues me and says I have no right to use the name. But trial isn't until March of 2019, and a court says, "This won't ultimately be decided until it goes to trial next year. In the mean time, while we get it sorted out, Bosk can use the McDonald's name." I would be allowed to represent myself as McDonald's. But I'm really not. And, again, everybody knows that. People could just say, "well, there are two McDonald's right now." And, legally, they would be correct. But it's still not really the same thing.