Legal Battle Erupts Over .easy Top-Level Domain as Link Freedom Group Sues easyGroup and Appeals to ICANN

Furthermore, LFG is seeking a judicial declaration that its proposed operation of the .easy top-level domain would not, in fact, infringe upon any of easyGroup’s trademarks. By seeking this preemptive ruling, LFG hopes to neutralize the threat of future infringement suits that could hamper its ability to attract investors and partners for the registry project. As an alternative legal theory, LFG is pursuing a finding of tortious interference, suggesting that easyGroup’s threats were intentionally designed to disrupt LFG’s legitimate business prospects and its standing within the ICANN application ecosystem.

The legal battle in federal court is only one half of LFG’s strategy. On September 10, the company also directed its grievances to ICANN itself, sending a formal letter to the global domain regulator. In this correspondence, LFG called for the outright disqualification of easyGroup’s application for the .easy TLD. The core of LFG’s argument to ICANN is that easyGroup’s legal threats constitute a violation of the rules governing communication between applicants who find themselves in a "contention set"—a situation where multiple parties have applied for the exact same TLD string.

LFG’s letter to ICANN highlights a perceived attempt by easyGroup to "route around" the objective evaluation processes that ICANN has spent years developing. The letter points specifically to Module 4 of the ICANN Applicant Guidebook (AGB), which outlines the Legal Rights Objection (LRO) process. The LRO is a mechanism specifically designed to allow trademark holders to challenge a TLD application if they believe the string would unfairly infringe upon their existing intellectual property. LFG contends that because this orderly, objective process exists, there is no justifiable reason for an applicant to use private legal threats to induce a competitor to withdraw.

The letter states that easyGroup’s actions appear to be a prohibited form of communication intended to manipulate the outcome of the contention set. Under ICANN’s current rules, applicants are generally restricted in how they communicate with one another regarding their competing bids, especially in ways that could be seen as collusive or coercive. LFG has asked ICANN to provide immediate clarification on whether easyGroup’s letter violates these guidebook rules.

The timing of this dispute is particularly sensitive for ICANN and the broader domain community. The industry is currently awaiting "Reveal Day," the date on which ICANN will publicly disclose the full list of applicants and the specific strings they have applied for. There is currently a significant amount of uncertainty and debate regarding the extent to which applicants are allowed to communicate or reach private settlements before this official disclosure. By forcing ICANN to weigh in on the easyGroup situation, LFG is essentially asking the regulator to set a clear precedent.