Facing a C&D and a "Verified Complaint"

[Pasquat]

Hello,

I have just found this forum and thought I might post my case here.
To make a long story short: I acquired a web business few weeks ago. The business was dying and the seller said he was not anymore able to maintain it because he has severe health problems. We already acquired few websites in the past (mostly in the webhosting industry) and it was each time smooth to work with a standard BSA (Business sale agreement) and a copy of the Driver license.
However, it seems we have been abused and we acquired this business from someone that was not the formal owner (as long as he doesn't reply anymore my messages).
Beside this, one day after the domain names transfer, we have been threatened by someone pretending to be the real owner of this business and asking us to return him back his domain names. As long as there is no way to cancel a domain name transfer when it has been completed, I simply asked this person if he could prove his identity (scanned copy of ID documents) before initiating a transfer request. He never replied and rather chose to hire a lawyer.
We made our homework and reversed the phone number he used to contact us and the records founds on Intelius leads to someone else but not the supposed person (As well as the new postal address of the incorporation).
His Lawyer sent us then a Cease-and-desist letter. I told him that, as long as the money transfer has never been proceeded, we were ready to transfer the domain names back if his client was able to show us an identity proof. The only answer I received was a "Verified Complaint" stating that we stole the domain names and we sold the software (copyright infringement) against the real owner wills.
As you might have noticed, I am not English native and it is really difficult for us to understand the US law game.
It would have been way easier, and would have less tarnished the businesses images, if this person sent us any proof of his pretended identity. This is why I am under the impression there is something not really clear in this case and this person is not necessary who he is pretending to be.
For now, I have read that those "Verified Complaints" were the first step in a lawsuit. I guess I need a legal advice now and I am seeking a lawyer as well.
I would have rather fond a good deal than a bad lawsuit but the only concern of this person seems to sue us without answering our simple request (giving us an identity proof).

Was my request to get a proof of identity against the law? Why would someone not comply with it?
I am under the impression this person was a Freelancer of the company that has access to the servers and is trying to get advantage of the current situation to take control over the business. Could a "Verified complaint" been filled without the relevant identity proofs, only an incorporation records could be necessary?

At last but not least, how can we resolve this situation without starting a legal action which will be time and money consuming?

 

[Michael Wechsler]

I'm sorry to hear about your problem. There is no possible way I can answer your questions properly as they are very fact intensive. I've done a great deal of legal work for clients in the area of domain name resolution and it can be a tricky business.

First, Intelius is notoriously inaccurate and I find it to be an extremely misleading service. They collect public records that could be inaccurate or even have listings that are many years old and outdated. I wouldn't necessarily rely on them for any information.

Second, I don't know the details of the scam. If someone represented he was the rightful owner and sold you a domain that wasn't his, then the rightful owner cannot be penalized. Typically I wouldn't pay a significant sum of money until the domain was transferred into my control or, at the very least, the transfer request to change registrant information was made and completed.

Third, a verification is an affidavit which swears to the truth of the pleading (in English, that the contents of what is plead/complained about is true.) In NY, it is of questionable necessity in most instances as to the requirement, since common sense dictates that the statements in the complaint, while made through the attorney, are those of the client and not the attorney.

It may be required where there is an appendation of a schedule of goods or services (See NY CPLR 3016(f)) or in an Article 78 proceeding (a proceeding against a "body or officer" and which is usually used to review administrative decisions). Note that while complaints may not require verification, answers may require them regardless of the complaint.

There may be no easy way to manage this problem. If you paid significant money to buy the domain, I'd at least have a consultation with an attorney to determine how to proceed with your case.