In Case T-422/09, the GC overturned the decision of the Second Board of Appeal, holding there is likelihood of confusion between the contested CTM Bahianas and earlier rights Havaianas :

 v 

The element ‘las originales’ although lacking distinctive character, is not insignificant in the overall impression. From the visual point of view, the BOA was censored for not taking into account the oval element which is common to the signs in conflict. From the phonetic point of view ‘havaianas’ and ‘bahianas’ are pronounced almost identically by the Spanish consumer (i.e.: ‘v’ is pronounced like ‘b’ and ‘ha’ may or not be pronounced with an aspirated ‘h’). Conceptually, “bahiano” is a Spanish word which refers to the island of Bahía in Honduras, and thus for those consumers for which the signs have a meaning whereas the earlier right is a reference to Hawai, they both refer to the concept of far-away places of vacation and sea.

Therefore, there is a likelihood of confusion for the Spanish consumer for similar goods in Class 25 and the contested CTM must be rejected for ‘Flip-flops, sandals, slippers’.