“George Dikian” has now filed an answer to the VPN.com lawsuit. Dikian is represented by Rodenbaugh Law.
In June VPN.com LLC filed a multimillion lawsuit against domain investor George Dikian, Qiang Du and “John Doe” at the US District Court (California).
Dikian admits in the answer that Dikian is the professional alias identity of a well-known domain name investor and reseller.
Unless specifically admitted, Dikian denies each and all of the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Here are a few interesting bits of the answer:
“On information and belief, based upon the admissions in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it is Plaintiff that attempted to commit one completely fraudulent domain name transaction. Apparently blinded yet guided by nothing but greed, Plaintiff alleges that it was defrauded of some $250,000 worth of bitcoin (as of May 4, 2022 – worth about half that amount now), in the process of perpetrating its own fraud, by which Plaintiff hoped to extract a $2,150,000 so-called “commission” as an undisclosed dual agent for both parties to the fictional transaction.”
“Dikian admits that 89.com was and is owned by Dikian. Dikian lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies the allegations of this Paragraph.”
“Dikian admits that Dikian is the professional alias identity of a well-known domain name investor and reseller. Dikian admits that there are many active domain name records listing “G.Dikian@yahoo.com” as an email contact, as identified by a “reverse WHOIS” search on DomainTools. Dikian lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies the remaining allegations of this Paragraph.”
“Dikian lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations of this Paragraph, and therefore denies the allegations of this Paragraph. On information and belief, based on long experience in the domain name industry, it is unconscionable for any domain name broker to charge a nearly 100% commission (based on the sales price) in any transaction. Typical domain name brokerage commissions for multi-million dollar transactions are in the range of 5% to 15%. Dual agency transactions such as that described by Plaintiff are highly discouraged, if not illegal. Dikian states that he has never and would never agree to any transaction proposed by a dual agent disclosing a nearly 100% commission on the sales price.”
I am not too familiar with US law but I am pretty sure that in most countries you need to state your real name in a court to file an answer and you can not reply using an alias and sign the response as “Attorneys for Defendant sued as George Dikian”.
So, who is “George Dikian” on the VPN.com lawsuit?
If I was “George Dikian” and wanted to clear my name the first thing I would do is state my real name in the court. I wouldn’t use an alias in the first place but anyway…
You can read the complete “George Dikian”‘s response to the lawsuit here.
(As of today the original post about the lawsuit has 37 comments. They are worth a read.)