Complainant is The ServiceMaster Company ("Complainant") represented by P. Jay Hines, of Oblon, Spivak, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, P.C. Respondent is William Baker of onlinerealestatetours, Irving, TX ("Respondent").

The domain names at issue are <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com>, registered with Register.com.

On October 22, 2001, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed James P. Buchele as Panelist. 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.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on September 18, 2001; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on September 20, 2001.

On September 24, 2001, Register.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain names <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, < merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> are registered with Register.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On September 25, 2001, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of October 15, 2001 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@merymaids.com, postmaster@merrimaid.com, postmaster@merrimaids.com, postmaster@marymaids.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent.

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

A. Complainant

The <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and

<marymaids.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERRYMAIDS mark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> domain names.

Respondent registered <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> in bad faith.

B. Respondent

No Response received.

Complainant owns a U.S. service mark for MERRY MAIDS for both commercial and residential cleaning services as well as registered trademarks in 19 countries and the European Union. Complainant licenses the mark to Merry Maids who in turn sublicenses the name to its franchises.

Complainant’s licensee, MERRY MAIDS registered <merrymaids.com> in November 1994. This website is actively advertised and used to promote the services of MERRY MAIDS. MERRY MAIDS has spent millions of dollars promoting the MERRY MAIDS mark internationally. Further, MERRY MAIDS has brought in 225 million dollars in customer-level revenue.

Respondent used the domain names for two purposes. Some of the domain names appear to be advertising competing maid services, and others Respondent says were registered in order to build a website in order for unmarried women living in poverty to meet men in any part of the world. One of the women on Respondent’s escort websites is the same one on one of the websites connected to the disputed domain names.

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

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the 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.

Respondent’s domain names <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERRY MAIDS mark. The misspelling of complainant’s mark in the domain name does not properly distinguish it. See Victoria’s Secret et al. v. Zuccarini, FA 95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that misspelling words and adding letters on to words does not create a distinct mark but is nevertheless confusingly similar with the Complainant’s marks); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Zuccarini, FA 94454 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 30, 2000) (finding the domain name <hewlitpackard.com> to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s HEWLETT-PACKARD mark).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent does not have legitimate interests in the <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> domain names because it did not use them for a bona fide offering of goods. Respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to promote a competing maid service is not a bona fide offering of goods. See The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Elec., D2000-0474 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Respondent’s use of the domain names to sell competing goods was an illegitimate use and not a bona fide offering of goods); see also Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website).

Further, Respondent’s use of the domain names for promoting adult-orientated services is not a bona fide offering of goods as it tarnishes Complainant’s mark. See MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000) (finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party sites offering adult orientated services, where such use is calculated to mislead consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see also Geoffrey, Inc., v. O’Hara, FA 97152 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 8, 2001) (finding that Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark for adult orientated services is not a bona fide offering of goods).

Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests in <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> because Respondent was not commonly known by that name. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark).

Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests in the domain names at issue because Respondent’s use of the domain names was not a fair use. As Respondent’s domain names are misspellings of Complainant’s mark, and were used to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s sites they do not constitute a fair use. See Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc. v. Zuccarini, D2000-0330 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (finding that fair use does not apply where the domain names are misspellings of Complainant's mark); see also Kosmea Pty Ltd. v. Krpan, D2000-0948 (WIPO Oct. 3, 2000) (finding no rights in the domain name where Respondent has an intention to divert consumers of Complainant’s products to Respondent’s site by using Complainant’s mark).

As one of Complainant’s competitors in the cleaning business, Respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s MERRY MAIDS mark is evidence of bad faith. See Surface Protection Indus., Inc. v. The Webposters, D2000-1613 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2001) (finding that given the competitive relationship between Complainant and Respondent, Respondent likely registered the contested domain name with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business and create user confusion); see also Lubbock Radio Paging v. Venture Tele-Messaging, FA 96102 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 23, 2000) (concluding that domain names were registered and used in bad faith where Respondent and Complainant were in the same line of business in the same market area).

Respondent’s use of domain names confusingly similar to complainant’s mark for adult orientated services is evidence of bad faith. See Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain names in question to graphic, adult-oriented websites is evidence of bad faith); see also CCA Indus., Inc. v. Dailey, D2000-0148 (WIPO Apr. 26, 2000) (finding that "this association with an adult orientated web site can itself constitute a bad faith").

Further, Respondent’s submittal of incorrect contact information to the Whois record is evidence of bad faith. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., v. Faw, FA 94971 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 12, 2000) (finding that false information on Whois directory is bad faith); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. QTR Corp., FA 92016 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding the same).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be hereby granted.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain names <merymaids.com>, <merrimaid.com>, <merrimaids.com>, and <marymaids.com> be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.