Ontarioministorage.com

The timeline behind ontarioministorage.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Third Act Capital, Inc. d/b/a Ontario Mini Storage v. Storable ITOps, Jim Banducci, Jr. Case No. D2025-5410 1. The Parties The Complainant is Third Act Capital, Inc. d/b/a Ontario Mini Storage, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented. The Respondents are Storable ITOps, Jim Banducci, Jr., United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ontarioministorage.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 29, 2025. On December 29, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 31, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (“Brandsight Privacy Costumer 413675 c/o GoDaddy Corporate Domains, LLC”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email to the Complainant on January 7, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 7, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 15, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 4, 2026. The Respondent Jim Banducci, Jr. sent email communications to the Center on January 15, February 3, 4, and 6, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a corporation established under the laws of the State of Oregon, United States in June 2025, with a principal place of business in Boise, Idaho, United States. The Complaint attaches records from the online database of the Oregon Secretary of State showing that the Complainant registered the assumed business name (“ABN”) “Ontario Mini Storage”, as did its predecessor OMS Enterprises, LLC, formed in March 1996, originally as Ontario Mini Storage, L.L.C.). The Complainant points to these records to demonstrate that the Complainant and its predecessor have operated a self-storage business continuously in the Ontario, Oregon area since 1996 under the mark ONTARIO MINI STORAGE, which the Complainant claims as a common law mark. The Complainant operates the website for the business at “www.ontarioministorageor.com”, a domain name that, according to RDAP records, was created in February 2021. 1 ( An annex to the Complaint identifies this as the Complainant’s “new website” but does not furnish a sample of an older website at a different domain name). The Complainant’s website is headed “Ontario Mini Storage” with a logo featuring those words beside an illustration of a lockup storage unit with a roll-down door. Photos on the website show the same logo on signage at the storage location, and additional photos of the signage are included with the Complaint. The website and signage do not display a circle “TM” symbol publicly asserting common law trademark or a pending trademark registration application. However, the website “Terms and Conditions” page includes the following “Trademarks” paragraph: “Ontario Mini Storage trademarks, service marks, graphics and logos used in connection with this website are trademarks or registered trademarks of Ontario Mini Storage or Ontario Mini Storage’s licensors. ...Your use of the website grants you no right or license to reproduce or otherwise use any Ontario Mini Storage trademarks or third-party trademarks”. The Complainant’s website quotes from 20 Google customer reviews. The Complainant has a pending application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Serial Number 99534227, to register ONTARIO MINI STORAGE as a word mark (filed December 7, 2025) in international class 39. The application claims first use in commerce on March 11, 1996. The application includes photos displaying the Complainant’s old and new signage and disclaims exclusive right to use “MINI STORAGE” apart from the mark as shown. The disputed domain name was created on October 2, 2025, and is registered to Storable ITOps, listing a postal address in Austin, Texas, United States, and a contact email address at “[...]@storable.com”. Storable, according to its website at “www.storable.com”, is a company that provides “property management software ... tailored to power self-storage facilities of all sizes”. It appears from its website that Storable provides a variety of information technology support services to independently owned self-storage facilities. The disputed domain name redirects to “www.ontarioorstorage.com”, a website headed “Ontario Storage” advertising a self-storage facility in Ontario, Oregon. This website (“the Respondent’s website”) does not identify the website operator but indicates that it is “Powered” by Storable Easy, which relates to the Texas company found in the contact details of the disputed domain name registration which uses a “storable” email address. The Panel notes that the online database of the Oregon Secretary of State shows that James Banducci. Jr., a resident of the State of Idaho, United States, registered “Ontario Storage” as an assumed 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 3 business name on November 10, 2024, with a principal place of business at the same address shown for the self-storage facility advertised on the Respondent’s website. (That ABN is classified as “inactive” for failure to renew). As “Jim Banducci” or “Jim Banducci, Jr.” alone corresponded with the Center in this proceeding and appears to be the party using the disputed domain name, the Panel has added him as a Respondent and refers hereafter to “Storable IT Ops” and Jim Banducci, Jr. as “the Respondent”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its common law word mark ONTARIO MINI STORAGE. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is a direct competitor in the same local market and is known by a different name, “Ontario Storage”. Thus, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name but rather registered it in bad faith, with awareness of its local competitor, to misdirect Internet users for commercial gain. The Complainant observes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in shortly after the Complainant “increased its visibility”, submitting photos with the Complainant showing that the Complainant added signage and street-side advertising at its storage facility in September 2025. B. Respondent The Respondent Jim Banducci first sent emails offering only to have a “5 minute call” to settle the matter. In its submission to the Center on February 2 2026, aside from repeating the offer of having a five-minute phone call with the Complainant, it stated that Complainant had sent his business “threatening email regarding this name [the disputed domain name]”. The Respondent’s further email communications repeated his understanding that the matter could be resolved by a phone call. In an email exchange with the Complainant on December 12, 2025, prior to these proceedings, the Respondent Jim Banducci stated “I have spoken to the people that we got our domain name from and that it is a legal name that was available according to them. At this point I guess you can text me and I will call and leave a message response so that you can have proof of what I say. At this point I can't tell if you are asking us something or threatening us? Either way we would like to get it resolved.” On January 16, 2026, the Center inquired the Parties on their interest in pursuing settlement discussions. In the absence of a reply, the proceedings continued. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the Complainant has established unregistered service mark rights in the word mark ONTARIO MINI STORAGE for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.3. Although the Complainant has not furnished sales data, the record shows that the Complainant or its predecessor have operated a local business under that mark, with signage and a corresponding trade name, for nearly thirty years, as well as a website in more recent years. The Respondent does not dispute this. page 4 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Even though the Respondent has sent multiple communications in the proceedings, none of them rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and the Respondent has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent Jim Banducci does business under a similar but different name, “Ontario Storage”, which is the name heading the Respondent’s website and the assumed business name that the Respondent registered for a year from November 2024 through November 2025. The Panel notes that the Complainant, through its predecessors, has been operating under the ONTARIO MINI STORAGE brand in the region for decades and finds that the fact that the Respondent Jim Banducci uses the recently registered disputed domain name to redirect to his competing website cannot be considered a use in connection with a “bona fide” offering of goods and services under the Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), because this is in furtherance of a bad faith exploitation of the Complainant’s mark, as detailed in the following section. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent does not deny prior knowledge of the Complainant’s mark, and the Panel finds it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of it. The Parties are direct competitors in the same town of some 11,600 people (according to Wikipedia), and their self-storage facilities are both located on the same street, about 1.3 miles (2 kilometers) apart from each other, according to Google Maps, and the Complainant has been doing business under the ONTARIO MINI STORAGE brand for decades. A few weeks after the Complainant put up highly visible signage on this street, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name conforming not to its own business name but to the Complainant’s mark, using it to redirect to the Respondent’s website. This accords with the instance of bad faith described in the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), intentionally attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent has consistently failed to come forward with an alternative, good-faith explanation for the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. page 5 The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <ontarioministorage.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: February 23, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.