Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark FERRING.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that no third party was authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name, including Honey Salt Ltd.; any Respondent’s attempts to demonstrate an alleged legitimate interest based on free speech/rights to criticism have to be dismissed insofar as the alleged criticism is not genuine nor non-commercial; Respondent does not exercise these rights by itself on the websites (no comments published from the latter against Complainant; it only seems to provide a so-called platform) and the comments are anonymous, undated, without any indication / evidence they are genuine; Respondent implemented links redirecting to other webpages about third parties, which necessarily increase the traffic to the respective websites, seeking to profit from this activity by generating revenues; Respondent offered for sale both domain names for USD 2,598 each immediately after their registrations; and the foregoing obviously excludes any “fair use” while the alleged free speech use is often found to be primarily a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity or tarnishment. Examiner finds that such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. Examiner also finds that there is no record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner concludes in the absence of Response that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that Respondent has voluntarily registered the disputed domain names reproducing/imitating the trademark FERRING, with knowledge of its reputation and that of FERRING group founded 71 years ago. It did not respond to either of the two cease-and-desist letters sent by Complainant. As per the presumed Respondent’s statements made in previous cases, its business model is to list domain names on the open market to resell them shortly after their registrations. Respondent is engaged in such a pattern of abusive registrations. While several UDRP sanctioned similar behaviors, Respondent now claims to be willing to freely transfer the domain names by giving the AUTHCODE however, the domains remain in ClientTransferProhibited and ClientUpdateProhibited status preventing any transfer. Furthermore, these “proposals” occur after the receipt of FERRING’s C&D letters, which evidences the bad faith. Respondent also obviously aims to take unfair commercial advantage of the FERRING trademark by increasing its websites’ Internet traffic (and possibly the prices of the domain names to which they resolve). Examiner agrees with Complainant that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. ferring.sucks
2. ferringpharmaceuticals.sucks