Globalservesolutions.com

The timeline behind globalservesolutions.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.

UDRP Decision — Claim Number FA2606002229003 DECISION PC Connection, Inc. v. Peter Brudna Claim Number: FA2606002229003 PARTIES Complainant is PC Connection, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brian M. Taillon of GTC Law Group PC, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is Peter Brudna ("Respondent"), Germany. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <globalservesolutions.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with IONOS SE. 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 24, 2026; Forum received payment on June 24, 2026. Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 30, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information, together with a German translation of the Amended Complaint and its Annex Schedule Index. On June 25, 2026, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <globalservesolutions.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 July 1, 2026, Forum served the German and English Complaint and all Annexes, including a German and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2026 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@globalservesolutions.com. Also on July 1, 2026, the German and English 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. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default in German and English. On July 22, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider as Panelist. 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The Registrar has confirmed that the Registration Agreement for the <globalservesolutions.com> domain name is written in German. Rule 11(a) provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Complaint in English and, upon Forum's notification that the Registration Agreement is in German, submitted with its Amended Complaint a German translation of the Amended Complaint and its Annex Schedule Index. Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, the Written Notice, and the Notification of Respondent Default on Respondent in both German and English. Respondent has accordingly received every material communication in this proceeding in the language of the Registration Agreement, yet has not responded, has not requested that the proceeding be conducted in German, and has not otherwise participated. The Panel notes, moreover, that the Disputed Domain Name is composed of Latin characters and of the English words "global," "serve," and "solutions," and that the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name is presented in English and advertises IT services for "clients worldwide," from which it may reasonably be inferred that Respondent is able to communicate and conduct business in English. In these circumstances, conducting the proceeding and rendering this decision in English works no unfairness to Respondent, while requiring further translation would impose expense and delay without corresponding benefit to any party. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), and having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Panel determines that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be English. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.5. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant alleges: That Complainant has provided numerous goods and services relating to IT since 1982. The trademark GLOBALSERVE has been in use since at least as early as January 2000, and screenshots from the Internet Archive at www.archive.org reflect use of the mark by Complainant's predecessor in interest, GlobalServe, Inc., on the website at www.global-serve.com since at least as early as July 20, 2001. Complainant acquired GlobalServe, Inc. in 2016 and has continued to operate it as a dedicated division providing international IT procurement and supply chain management services under the GLOBALSERVE mark. Today, the www.global-serve.com domain redirects to Complainant's website at www.connection.com, through which Complainant promotes services allowing multinational corporations to source, configure, and deploy IT assets in over 125 countries through a centralized purchasing platform, serving customers in the United States and foreign jurisdictions around the world. That Complainant owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,108,207 and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 6,108,208 for the mark GLOBALSERVE, in connection with IT procurement and supply chain management services, including maintenance of computer hardware, computer installation and repairs, custom computer software and system design, configuration and integration, and computer consultation. Through longstanding and widespread use of its trademark, Complainant has developed substantial goodwill in the GLOBALSERVE mark, and the public has come to associate the mark with Complainant's services. That the Disputed Domain Name <globalservesolutions.com> is confusingly similar to the GLOBALSERVE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) because the only difference is the addition of the generic term "solutions" after the mark. The Disputed Domain Name so closely resembles the GLOBALSERVE trademark that Internet users believing they are searching for a website owned by or affiliated with Complainant could inadvertently be led to Respondent's domain. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name or any other domain that includes the GLOBALSERVE mark. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on March 27, 2025. It resolves to an active website consisting of a single page that prominently features the wording GLOBALSERVE SOLUTIONS at the top of the page while pretending to promote IT-related services, including cloud solutions, cybersecurity, software development, network solutions, hardware development, monitoring and support, and IT infrastructure services for clients worldwide, services identical or highly related to Complainant's primary business. The spurious content of the webpage further reflects Respondent's lack of any legitimate interest: the links on the site all lead, directly or indirectly, only to a "Contact Us Now" button toward the bottom of the page that links to an e-mail address; no actual case studies are accessible, the "Read Case Study" links merely redirecting to the top of the page; and the customer testimonials in the "What Our Partners Say" section cannot be verified and appear to be fabricated, a Google search for the purported customer "Anna Schmidt" of "FinovaCorp," for example, revealing no results other than the <globalservesolutions.com> website itself. The page purports to promote IT services provided by GlobalServe Solutions EOOD of Bulgaria, but a search of the Republic of Bulgaria's Commercial Register and Register of Non-Profit Legal Entities indicates that no such entity exists; Google search results for GLOBALSERVE SOLUTIONS reflect Complainant's GLOBALSERVE business; a Google Maps search for the company's purported street address in Sofia, Bulgaria depicts what appears to be a residential address; and Complainant has found no trademark applications filed by the entity. There appears to be no indication that GlobalServe Solutions EOOD has ever existed, and such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name consists of Complainant's GLOBALSERVE trademark and the generic wording "solutions," which falsely suggests that it relates to Complainant's business of providing IT solutions to customers around the world, when in fact the site reflects an entity and services that do not exist. The result is a clearly intentional likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark, which can cause reputational and economic harm to Complainant, and no good faith motive can be gleaned from Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Panels have found evidence such as the lack of a respondent's own rights or legitimate interests in a domain name and the absence of any conceivable good faith use to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.1.4. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant, PC Connection, Inc., of Merrimack, New Hampshire, USA, has provided IT-related goods and services since 1982. Complainant owns U.S. Reg. No. 6,108,207, registered July 21, 2020, for the mark GLOBALSERVE (the "GLOBALSERVE Mark") for maintenance of computer hardware and computer installation and repairs in International Class 37, and U.S. Reg. No. 6,108,208, registered July 21, 2020, for the GLOBALSERVE Mark for computer software and computer system design for others, namely, custom design, configuration and integration, and computer consultation, in International Class 42, each registration reciting a date of first use in commerce in January 2000. Screenshots from the Internet Archive show use of the GLOBALSERVE Mark by Complainant's predecessor in interest, GlobalServe, Inc., on the website at www.global-serve.com since at least as early as July 20, 2001. Complainant acquired GlobalServe, Inc. in 2016 and has continued to operate it as a dedicated division providing international IT procurement and supply chain management services under the GLOBALSERVE Mark. The www.global-serve.com domain today redirects to Complainant's website at www.connection.com, through which Complainant promotes services enabling multinational corporations to source, configure, and deploy IT assets in over 125 countries. The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on March 27, 2025, nearly five years after the GLOBALSERVE Mark was registered with the USPTO and a quarter century after the GLOBALSERVE Mark was first used in commerce. The publicly available WHOIS record is privacy-shielded; the Registrar's verification disclosed the underlying registrant as Peter Brudna, of Wörthsee, Germany. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active, single-page, English-language website (the "Respondent's Website") headed "GlobalServe Solutions," which promotes purported IT services under the tagline "Innovation in IT. Scaled Globally." The Respondent's Website advertises cloud solutions, cybersecurity, software development, network solutions, hardware development, monitoring and support, and IT infrastructure services for "clients worldwide," services identical or highly related to the IT procurement, supply chain management, hardware maintenance, software design, and consultation services that Complainant provides under the GLOBALSERVE Mark. The content of the Respondent's Website is spurious. Its links lead, directly or indirectly, only to a "Contact Us Now" button toward the bottom of the page that links to an e-mail address. The "Success Stories from Practice" section offers no accessible case studies, its "Read Case Study" links merely returning the visitor to the top of the page. The page displays statistics implausible on their face, including an "Infrastructure Uptime" figure of 1,851.4 percent. The customer testimonials in the "What Our Partners Say" section are attributed to individuals and companies that cannot be located in Google searches, which return no results for the purported customers, such as "Anna Schmidt" of "FinovaCorp," other than the Respondent's Website itself. The footer of the Respondent's Website states that the site is operated by "GlobalServe Solutions EOOD," described as headquartered in Bulgaria, with a street address in Sofia; searches of the Republic of Bulgaria's Commercial Register and Register of Non-Profit Legal Entities disclose no such entity, the Sofia street address appears from a Google Maps search to be residential, and the record contains no indication that GlobalServe Solutions EOOD exists. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Registrar-disclosed registrant name, Peter Brudna, bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the GLOBALSERVE Mark in a domain name or in any other manner. 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. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has established rights in the GLOBALSERVE Mark through its registrations with the USPTO, including U.S. Reg. No. 6,108,207 and U.S. Reg. No. 6,108,208, each registered July 21, 2020. Registration of a mark with one or more national or regional trademark authorities is prima facie evidence of a complainant's rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1; see also Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy). The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the GLOBALSERVE Mark, adding only the generic or descriptive term "solutions" and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where, as here, the mark remains clearly recognizable within the domain name; indeed, the term "solutions" describes the very IT solutions business that Complainant conducts under the GLOBALSERVE Mark and heightens, rather than dispels, the association with Complainant. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GLOBALSERVE Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Registrar-disclosed registrant information identifies the registrant as "Peter Brudna," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has ever been known by it. See Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024) (respondent not commonly known by the domain name where the WHOIS identifies a registrant whose name does not correspond to the domain name and complainant has not authorized respondent to use its mark). Nor has Complainant licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the GLOBALSERVE Mark in any manner. The purported operator of the Respondent's Website, "GlobalServe Solutions EOOD," cannot supply the missing right or legitimate interest: on the uncontested record, no such entity exists. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to the Respondent's Website, a single-page site that holds itself out as the online presence of an IT services firm trading under a name consisting of Complainant's GLOBALSERVE Mark and the descriptive term "solutions," offering services identical or highly related to Complainant's own. The site's content is a facade: its case studies are inaccessible, its statistics are impossible, its customer testimonials are attributed to persons and companies that cannot be found, and its purported Bulgarian operator does not appear in the official register of Bulgarian entities. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to present a fabricated commercial persona trading on a complainant's mark, and to solicit contact from Internet users confused as to the site's affiliation with the complainant, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Office Depot, LLC and OMX, Inc. v. Zeeshan Arain, FA 2213972 (Forum Apr. 29, 2026) (no bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the respondent's website held itself out as the complainant's "official" website, presented fabricated customer testimonials, and sought to monetize the resulting confusion). Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has not come forward with any evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on March 27, 2025, nearly five years after Complainant registered the GLOBALSERVE Mark with the USPTO and a quarter century after the GLOBALSERVE Mark was first used in commerce. Respondent did not select the Disputed Domain Name at random. Respondent paired Complainant's GLOBALSERVE Mark with the term "solutions," a word describing the very business Complainant conducts under the mark, and populated the resolving website with offerings of cloud, cybersecurity, software, hardware, and IT infrastructure services that mirror the field in which Complainant and its predecessor have traded under the GLOBALSERVE Mark since 2000. The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GLOBALSERVE Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, which is evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name likewise evidences bad faith. The Respondent's Website presents a fabricated commercial persona, an IT services firm that does not exist, operated by a Bulgarian entity that cannot be found in any register, vouched for by customers who cannot be located, under a name and domain confusingly similar to Complainant's GLOBALSERVE Mark. The single functioning pathway on the site, its "Contact Us Now" e-mail link, solicits inquiries from Internet users drawn to the site by its false suggestion of a connection with Complainant's GLOBALSERVE business. By this conduct Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GLOBALSERVE Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the services promoted on it, evidencing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.1.4; see also Office Depot, LLC and OMX, Inc. v. Zeeshan Arain, FA 2213972 (Forum Apr. 29, 2026) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent's website passed itself off as the complainant's official website, complete with fabricated testimonials, in order to profit from the resulting confusion). The circumstances enumerated in Policy ¶ 4(b) are, moreover, illustrative rather than exhaustive. The wholesale fabrication that pervades the Respondent's Website, from its nonexistent operator to its invented testimonials and impossible statistics, excludes any conceivable good faith purpose for the registration and confirms that the Disputed Domain Name serves no purpose other than to capture Internet traffic intended for, or relating to, Complainant, to the detriment of Complainant's reputation and goodwill. The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <globalservesolutions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: July 22, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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