Of course I agree with you in principle, but having not followed the legal case of late, aren't they technically (and sadly) still both official versions of Queensryche?
I get how the argument can be made either way. But in the strictest sense of the word, no, I don't believe they are both "official" versions of Queensryche. They can both use the name
for now, but that does not make such use of the name equally valid by Geoff. There are two important reasons why:
First, the judge did not
give Geoff permission to use the name, as some would spin it. She simply
declined to issue a ruling that would stop him from using it. That is a very subtle, but also very important, distinction. Tate does not have the Court's blessing to use the name. The Court is just not going to actively intervene until the issue is decided at trial or the parties settle.
Second, Geoff is a 25%
minority shareholder. Anything a minority shareholder of a corporation does without permission from the majority of the shareholders is not considered an "official" act of the corporation. So, no, it's not official by any stretch, either in a legal sense or in the more common, everyday sense.
But regardless of whether anyone is comfortable making the "official"/"unofficial" distinction, people can still spread the word so that people actually know. The vast majority of people who go to see a "Queensryche" show or buy the "new Queensryche album" will not know there is a split and will not know that the official band is actively touring and getting ready to release an album. So if they hear about the Tate version, that may be all they know or care about unless they have the other side as well.