NewsCatcher.com UDRP: Rival data firms clash over domain ownership

NewsCatcher, Inc. filed a UDRP against Joshua Dziabiak and Perigon for the domain NewsCatcher.com, which redirects to perigon.io, a competing news analytics platform. The Complainant, operator of NewsCatcherAPI.com, cited trademark registration no. 7,833,558 (June 2025) and claimed common-law rights since 2020. It alleged that the Respondent, who once subscribed to its services, registered the domain in bad faith to misdirect users and exploit its brand.

Respondent argued that newscatcher.com was created in 1999 and lawfully purchased in 2022, describing “news catcher” as a generic term. The Panel found that while the Complainant had standing through its later registration, it failed to prove trademark rights predating the Respondent’s acquisition or that its mark had achieved secondary meaning at that time.

Panelist Gerald M. Levine noted that both parties operate in the same industry and were aware of each other, making this a commercial conflict between competitors, not a clear case of cybersquatting.

Final decision: Complaint denied; newscatcher.com remains with Respondent.

NewsCatcher, Inc. v. Joshua Dziabiak / Perigon

Claim Number: FA2509002179714

PARTIES

Complainant is NewsCatcher, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Carly Fraker of DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Joshua Dziabiak / Perigon (“Respondent”), Texas, USA.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is newscatcher.com, registered with Cloudflare, Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Gerald M. Levine as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 29, 2025; Forum received payment on September 29, 2025.

On October 1, 2025, Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the newscatcher.com domain name is registered with Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloudflare, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloudflare, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).

On October 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 27, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@newscatcher.com. Also on October 6, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on October 24, 2025.

On October 27, 2025, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Gerald M. Levine as Panelist.

On October 30, the Complainant filed an Additional Written Submission together with two exhibits, Annex M and Annex N.

On October 30, the Respondent Replied to the Complainant’s Additional Written Submission.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent” through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSIONS

The Panel has reviewed the parties’ supplemental submissions and the Complainant’s Annexes M and N consisting of email exchanges and agrees to accept them as they add an additional incontrovertible fact to the record, namely that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant prior to its registration of the disputed domain name newscatcher.com and that prior to its formal establishment of its business on 12/20/2021 subscribed to the Complainant’s services.

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

1. Complainant

Complainant avers

1. That it has a registered trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark OfficeReg. No. 7,833,558 dated June 17, 2025, and common law rights commencing at least as early as May 2020.
2. Its NEWSCATCHER Marks are associated with a premium news data andaggregation brand that provides customized news coverage and data solutions to a wide variety of clients and industries worldwide. Under these marks, the Complainant provides an API, or Application Programming Interface, which compiles and processes news data through algorithms customized to a client’s needs.
3. These services include data acquisition,extraction methods for a wide range of news articles and information, data integration, query processing, and customized solutions for clients. Clients are able to compile, review and save news coverage on various spectrums, including both on a global scale as well as through more tailored local coverage.
4. The NEWSCATCHER Marks are used in all aspects of Complainant’s news business and servicesas illustrated on its website home page at NewsCatcherAPI.com which it registered on February 16, 2020.
5. The NEWSCATCHER Marks have appeared in advertising and promotional materialsincluding, but not limited to, on media platforms like LinkedIn and GitHub. After several years of marketing, advertising, and sales, these trademarks have gained significant recognition and goodwill and are associated by customers worldwide exclusively with Complainant’s goods and services.
6. As a result of such lengthy and widespread use, the NEWSCATCHER mark is very well-known andespecially in the news, data analytics, and technology industry. The Complainant’s website prominently displays the NEWSCATCHER Marks throughout the website, including as the dominant portion of the main brand name and header of the website.

With regard to the Respondent, the Complainant contends

7. Itsbusiness was clearly created after Complainant established strong enforceable rights in the NEWSCATCHER Marks and after the date of first use (May 12, 2020) in the US (identified in Complainant’s U.S. trademark registration). Thus, the Respondent would have to have purchased the Domain Name in the Respondent’s name after it was formed (i.e. December 20, 2021 and early 2022).
8. Respondent’s services include searching of news databases, being able to customize the information provided, use of AI with news data-sets, and real-time news API, all similar to services provided by Complainant.
9. Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally redirect consumers and potential consumers to a website that features Complainant’s competitor – Perigon, Inc. – through “301” redirects. Specifically, the Domain Name permanently redirects to the perigon.io domain name, which resolves to a website (“Respondent’s website”) that provides and sells news aggregation, news analysis goods/services, and historical news archival services related to Perigoninstead of complainant’s own website and services for similar services.
10. The Respondentredirects newscatcher.com to an authentic webpage related directly to Complainant’s competitor. When considered together and presented in the context of Complainant’s NEWSCATCHER Marks, the parties are engaged in shared channels of trade in the news data, news aggregation and news technology space which gives the false impression that Respondent and the Domain Name are related to, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with Complainant, which they are not.
11. Previous to the current redirection of the Domain Name to Respondent’s website, the Domain Name hadalso been listed for sale in the amount of USD 4,000 in 2022. The general offer for public sale of the Domain Name demonstrates that Respondent has attempted to sell the Domain Name, and strongly suggests bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.
12. Respondent

The Respondent denies the Complainant’s contentions that it lacks rights or legitimate interests in or registered and is using newscatcher.com in bad faith. In particular, it contends:

1. The domain newscatcher.com was first created on July 20, 1999,more than two decades before Complainant existed.
2. Respondent acquired the domain in 2022in connection with Perigon, Inc.—a legitimatetechnology company providing contextual data and news intelligence services.
3. Since acquisition, the domain has only redirected visitors to Respondent’s primarycorporate site perigon.iovia a neutral 301 redirect (see Exhibit D). It has never been offered for sale, used for advertising, or designed to mislead users.
4. Complainant’s U.S. trademark NEWSCATCHER (Reg. No. 7833558) was filed in 2024and registered June 17, 2025,well after Respondent’s 2022 acquisition.
5. The phrase “news catcher” is a generic and descriptive termused by many companies,tools, and products in the media space.
6. Complainant’s Supplemental Submissions

The Complainant’s Supplemental Submissions consist of a brief statement relating to two email exchanges. The first, Annex M which is dated August 25, 2020, has reference to a meeting between the principals and the second, Annex N dated January 19, 2021, is notice from the Respondent unsubscribing from the Newscatcher services. Both annexes refer to a period predating the Respondent’s registration and redirection of the disputed domain name.

1. Respondent’s Supplemental Submission

The Respondent’s Supplemental Submission responds to Annexes M and N by denying that they have any relevance. It states: “At that time, Complainant had no registered trademark, nor any demonstrated common law rights recognizable under the Policy. A few early emails and a startup pitch deck do not confer exclusive rights to a descriptive phrase like “news catcher.”

FINDINGS

1. Complainantdemonstrates that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark registered by the US Patent and Trademark Office. However, as this right postdates the registration of the disputed domain name it cannot succeed under the UDRP. Its claim is not saved by the application date for the trademark as it too postdates the registration of the disputed domain name.
2. Nevertheless, the Complainant contends that it has common law rights that predate the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain nameas it contends that its first use in commerce commenced in 2020.
3. Assertions of first use in a trademark application is not self-confirming, but must be established with competent evidence.
4. ThePanel finds that the Complainant has failed to adduce evidence sufficient to establish the date of Complainant’s first use of the mark in commerce or that the mark achieved secondary meaning at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
5. Even if theComplainant had submitted evidence sufficient to support a first use in commerce prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that its claim is not actionable under the UDRP as the dispute presents a complex situation involving competitors developing news gathering businesses who were aware of each other prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. This complex situation is hinted at in the complaint language that the parties are competitors engaged in shared channels of trade in the news data, news aggregation and news technology space.
6. This dispute is more than a simple case of cybersquatting and its resolution must properly be presented to a court of competent jurisdiction to determine whether the disputed domain name was registered with a bad faith intent to profit from an anticipatory mark.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the NEWSCATCHER mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 7,833,558 registered June 17, 2025). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). The Complainant has also established that the disputed domain name, newscatcher.com is identical to its mark.

Ordinarily, the question of standing is easily resolved. If a complainant has a registered mark prior to the commencement of a UDRP proceeding it will have standing to maintain the proceedings, even though it may not have an actionable claim for cybersquatting, when for example its trademark rights (registered or unregistered) postdate the registration of the disputed domain name.

In this case, the Respondent points out that its acquisition of newscatcher.com predated the date of the Complainant’s trademark registration. While the precise date of acquisition is uncertain, the Complainant posits was either “at least the very end of 2021 or early 2022.” The Respondent is not enlightening on the precise date and neither is the Registrar’s verification which reflects a date of March 7, 2025, although in a September 30, 2022 email submitted by the Respondent the Complainant acknowledged that the Respondent was at that time already the registrant.

The Complainant counters this issue that the Respondent registered newscatcher.com prior to any trademark rights of by alleging that it has common law rights predating the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. In its trademark application which itself postdates the acquisition of the disputed domain name it asserts that its first use in commence was “at least as early as 05/12/2020.”

An alleged date of first use is not, however, self-confirming. The USPTO Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure 903.06 explains that where there is a dispute between parties as to the validity of a mark in the period prior to the filing date, “a date of use must be established by appropriate evidence. A date of use set forth in an application or registration owned by applicant or registrant is not evidence on behalf of that applicant or registrant.” There must still be evidence of secondary meaning at that earlier date.

What is that evidence to be? As discussed in section 1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the UDRP, the complainant must show that its mark has become a distinctive identifier which consumers associate with the complainant’s goods and/or services. Relevant evidence demonstrating such acquired distinctiveness (also referred to as secondary meaning) includes a range of factors such as (i) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. Specific evidence supporting assertions of acquired distinctiveness should be included in the complaint; conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning. In cases involving unregistered or common law marks that are comprised solely of descriptive terms which are not inherently distinctive, there is a greater onus on the complainant to present evidence of acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning.

The evidence produced by the Complainant consists of webpages from two social media websites, LinkedIn and GitHub, captured on September 16, 2025. See CW & Associates Consulting and Recruiting Inc. v. Lynda Pitchford / ITSR, FA 1619758 (Forum June 29, 2015) in dismissing the complaint the Panel noted: “Mere use of social media alone is not acceptable proof of secondary meaning, a/k/a/ acquired distinctiveness, in the mind of the general public.” While it is clear that the Complainant has a significant market reputation presently it has provided no evidence of the extent to which its mark was renowned at the time the disputed domain name was registered or earlier.

More specifically, the “Complainant has failed to provide evidence of any sales figures or advertising expenditures or any indication of the extent of use aside from what may be implied from the business name registration and placement of the name(s) on social media”.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant is in an unusual posture of at once having standing to maintain this proceeding by virtue of having a registered trademark, but having not established that at the time the Respondent registered newscatcher.com that it had achieved secondary meaning of its mark.

For this reason, the Complainant has not satisfied para. 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

As the Complainant has not satisfied the first element of the Policy it  cannot succeed on its complaint. However, the Panel considers that the circumstances of this case justify setting out the Panel’s conclusions on the other two elements.

In making its case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in newscatcher.com, the Complainant contends: “[W]hen considered together and presented in the context of Complainant’s NEWSCATCHER Marks, as well as the parties shared channels of trade in the news data, news aggregation and news technology space, [the registration of newscatcher.com] gives the false impression that Respondent and the Domain Name are related to, endorsed by, or otherwise associated with Complainant, which they are not.”

Granted that a claim of giving a false impression is ordinarily dealt with under the third element as a factor of bad faith, it is relevant here because the parties indisputably operate in “shared channels of trade,” which is an argument for trademark infringement rather than cybersquatting.

In rebuttal, the Respondent contends that “[s]ince  acquisition, the domain has only redirected visitors to Respondent’s primary corporate site perigon.io via a neutral 301 redirect. It has never been offered for sale, used for advertising, or designed to mislead users.” The Complainant admits that the domain name resolves to an “authentic website,” which can be taken as an admission that the Respondent is operating a bona fide business, but that its holding of newscatcher.com is “exploitative”.

The Complainant’s admissions and the Respondents contentions would ordinarily be sufficient to find that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under para. 4(c)(i) of the Policy. However, the Panel finds that there are facts in this case, particularly proof that prior to the registration and redirection of newscatcher.com the Respondent was actually aware of the Complainant, had in fact personal knowledge, and that the parties are competitors in the same field of business, that put into doubt Respondent’s defense under para. 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

Where a complainant has set forth a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as in this case the Panel so finds, the burden of proof shifts to the Respondent. To support a defense under para. 4(c)(i) assumes not only that the Respondent is operating a bona fide business but also that it acquired and is holding the disputed domain name free of any “nefarious purpose of causing confusion or diverting Complainant’s business toward Respondent,” ATVTracks.net Property, LLC v. Domains By Proxy, LLC, Domains ByProxy.com / Chad Green, FPNW, WIPO Claim No. D2021-1774.

Further, as the Panel points out in Medtronic, Inc. v. Aytekin Yilmaz of Medo Tekstil Elektronik Al. Sat. Tic. Ltd., WIPO Claim No. D2021-1758,  the meaning of “bona fide use” “encompasses the Respondent’s knowledge and motives in choosing the name in question – if done deliberately to trade off, or take advantage of the Complainant’s name or reputation, then the “bona fide” requirement is not met.”

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s brief response and supplemental submission does not present any facts or persuasive argument that demonstrate that the bona fide requirement has been met.

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of para. 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In one contention only, concerning bad faith under para. 4(b)(i) offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price in excess of any reasonable out of pocket expenses after the Respondent’s acquisition of newscatcher.com is there cause for a finding of cybersquatting. The Panel has reviewed the DomainTools Report submitted by the Complainant and finds that it is more likely than not that the Wayback Machine capture of this offer was created by the former registrant of the domain name and not yet removed by the Respondent. This finding is reinforced by DomainTools Report that shows that previous to the current redirection of the Domain Name to Respondent’s website, newscatcher.com had also been listed for sale by the immediately prior registrant in the amount of USD 4,000. There is simply no evidence that the Respondent adopted this offer.

In any event, the Panel concludes that the circumstances of this dispute raise issues beyond the scope of the Policy. The UDRP is not a catch all proceeding for all kinds of domain name disputes. This is particularly the case where, as here, the parties are competitors in the same industry and the Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark owner prior to its registration and redirection of the disputed domain name to its own competing website. See Humboldt Seed Company LLC v. Pot Sistemak S.L., WIPO Claim No. D2024-4349.

For this reason, the Panel dismisses this claim on the narrow grounds that the dispute between the parties exceeds the relatively limited “cybersquatting” scope of the UDRP. This does not mean that Complainant has no means for redressing its grievance against Respondent. The Panel decides only that Complainant must, if it so chooses, seek relief for its claim in a US court of competent jurisdiction because the record does not allow it to pursue it in a UDRP proceeding.

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

The Respondent has requested a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. For the reasons set forth above the Panel declines to make such a ruling as the circumstances giving rise to the claim raise issues of unclean hands. See Breazy Inc. v. Domains by Proxy, LLC, DomainsBy Proxy.com / VR PRODUCTS I LLC., WIPO Claim No. D2021-1486 held that “[A] request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking is an equitable remedy, and equitable relief should only be available to a party who comes before a panel with clean hands.” While no determination is made of unclean hands it is nonetheless an issue in this proceeding.

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the newscatcher.com domain name shall REMAIN WITH Respondent.

Gerald M. Levine, Panelist

Dated: November 3, 2025

Copyright © 2025 DomainGang.com · All Rights Reserved.