According to my records as an underbidder, BeEasy.com was sold in a NameJet auction on December 31, 2024 for $2,610. The domain name was the subject of a UDRP filing at WIPO. Fortunately for the domain registrant – a domain investor – the UDRP was denied by the single member panel.
From what I can tell, it looks like the UDRP was triggered by front running that appears to have occurred while the domain name was still in auction. An excerpt from the decision shows that someone made contact with the complainant, an entity called Be Easy Trust, on December 28, 2024:
“The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It states that it was contacted by the Respondent’s broker on December 28, 2024, being the same day that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name. It exhibits an email from an individual named “Tasha” at an organization named Overly Media, timed at 12:38 pm on December 28, 2024. The email states:
“Hi, how are you? The domain name beeasy.com is coming for sale. I am checking to see if you have any interest in it. It seems like it could be a good addition to your current domain name. Thanks! Tasha.”
The Complainant replied to the above email offering to purchase the disputed domain name, to which Tasha responded that the disputed domain name would be offered through escrow at a higher price. She added that she was a listing broker and could offer in-house finance for 36 months. The Complainant replied that that was “way too much” and that it would reconsider if the price was lowered.”
It looks like the domain name was in pending delete status on December 28, and it went into auction at NameJet shortly thereafter. This means the domain registrant was not the person who emailed the complainant.
In addition to showing this, the domain registrant was able to convince the panelist that the domain name was acquired because of its descriptive nature. Specifically, the panelist wrote:
“The Panel accepts the Respondent’s evidence that the phrase “Be Easy” is used in commerce by a significant number of parties independent of the Complainant, and in a substantial number of domain names unrelated to the Complainant. Moreover, there is no suggestion in this proceeding that the Complainant was the previous owner of the disputed domain name, or indeed its owner at any time. In these circumstances, while the Respondent may well have hoped to attract a buyer connected with the “Be Easy” phrase, the Panel finds no evidence upon which to conclude that the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s BE EASY trademark specifically.”
The panelist considered a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, but declined to make that finding.
