Of course ICANN will be able to deflect the use of their name by the other co-defendant for the purposes of threatening to interfere with the economic benefit of a contract (even though the co-defendant is the one issuing the threat of economic interference). I am not interested in ICANN, per se. It is, however, within the realm of possibility that the non-ICANN co-defendant is correct in their assertion that the liable party is ICANN. If ICANN is not the snivilling guilty party, then they will, of course, be found such by the court. It would be perspicacious for them, however, to ensure that they "go after" the organization using their name is vain, as it were. Since they have not done so, they will not be saved their costs.