LFG sues easyGroup over .easy TLD bid dispute

A dispute over the .easy top-level domain (TLD) has escalated into litigation, raising questions about ICANN’s rules governing communication between competing applicants. Link Freedom Group (LFG) has taken legal action against easyGroup, the conglomerate behind brands like easyJet, after receiving a legal threat demanding the withdrawal of its .easy application. The case could set a precedent for how disputes are handled before ICANN’s Reveal Day, when contention sets are formally announced.

What happened

LFG applied for the .easy TLD, only to receive a legal threat from easyGroup, which had also submitted an application. The threat, issued in early September, warned that any registrations under .easy would constitute trademark infringement and demanded LFG withdraw its bid by September 9. Instead of complying, LFG filed a lawsuit in federal court on September 21, seeking a declaratory judgment that either (1) disputes over .easy should be resolved through ICANN’s arbitration process, or (2) its planned TLD does not infringe easyGroup’s trademarks. Alternatively, LFG is pursuing a claim of tortious interference.

In parallel, LFG sent a letter to ICANN on September 10, urging the organization to disqualify easyGroup’s application. The letter argues that easyGroup’s threat violates the Applicant Guidebook’s prohibition on communications designed to induce withdrawal of competing applications. It highlights that ICANN’s Legal Rights Objection (LRO) process, outlined in Module 4 of the guidebook, is the proper mechanism for evaluating trademark claims. By bypassing this process, LFG contends, easyGroup undermined the orderly resolution of contention sets.

ICANN has not yet responded publicly to LFG’s letter, nor has it published the correspondence on its official page—a departure from its usual practice. The organization has, however, published a separate letter from the State of Texas objecting to .texas applications, suggesting selective transparency in this case.

Why it matters

The dispute centers on a critical ambiguity in ICANN’s rules: whether applicants in a contention set are permitted to negotiate or pressure each other before Reveal Day. The Applicant Guidebook explicitly prohibits communications intended to induce withdrawal, but enforcement has been inconsistent. If ICANN sides with LFG, it could clarify that such tactics are off-limits, forcing applicants to rely on formal processes like the LRO. Conversely, if ICANN declines to intervene, it may embolden similar preemptive legal threats in future TLD rounds.

For registry operators, the outcome could influence strategy. Some applicants may prefer to resolve disputes privately, while others—like LFG—are pushing for a more structured approach. The case also underscores the tension between trademark holders and new TLD applicants, particularly when brands like easyGroup seek to control generic terms.

What to watch

ICANN’s response to LFG’s letter will be pivotal. A clear ruling on whether easyGroup’s threat violated the guidebook could set a precedent for future contention sets. If ICANN punts the issue, as it has in the past, the uncertainty may persist, leaving applicants to navigate disputes through costly litigation rather than ICANN’s prescribed channels.

The lawsuit itself may also shape the .easy contention set. If the court rules in LFG’s favor, it could weaken easyGroup’s position, potentially paving the way for LFG or Aruba—the third applicant—to secure the TLD. Conversely, a victory for easyGroup could deter other applicants from challenging trademark holders, even when the TLD in question is a generic term.