Webwork - 4:45 pm on May 5, 2010 (gmt 0) [edited by: Webwork at 4:53 pm (utc) on May 5, 2010]
I find this "fact" very interesting: You (Buyer #1)=$750. Next person (Buyer #2)=$1500. Next, the "final deal" (Buyer #3)=$200K.
Such a fact pattern could indicate some very real CUNNING.
Buyer #2 could be a "straw man" purchaser, a pseudo-buyer, inserted into the "ultimate transaction" to insulate first seller (the one who agreed to sell to you) from a $$$,$$$ money damages claim. The $1500 price makes it look bona fide, even if there's other bad behavior that might justify a claim. The price paid, in theory, also - in theory - might limit your damages claim against "your seller" to the difference between what you offered and what, ultimately, was paid at sale #1.
Also, by virtue of the strawman purchaser, buyer #3 is "insulated". IF he/she bought directly seller #1 he might lose "bona fide purchaser" status and might be subject to equitable attack on the transfer (in violation of your agreement) under equitable theories such as "unclean hands doctrine", equitable estoppel, etc.
Hire yourself a lawyer. (Not me.) And, NO, ICANN is NOT the route. The path is to the correct court - whatever that jurisdiction might be.
[edited by: Webwork at 4:53 pm (utc) on May 5, 2010]