Alpargatas SA v BHC Origin Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd

[2024] ATMO 67

TRADE MARKS ACT 1995

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS WITH REASONS

Re:Opposition by Alpargatas SA to registration of trade mark application number 2183937 (class 3) - HAVAIANAS - in the name of BHC ORIGIN TRADING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

Delegate:

Benjamin Goldsworthy

Representation:

Opponent: Michelle Howe and Francesca Colubriale of Spruson & Ferguson

Applicant: Self-represented

Decision:

2024 ATMO 67

Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) – opposition under section 52 – ss 42(b), 44, 60 and 62A pursued – none established – trade mark to proceed to registration.

Background

1. On 3 June 2021 (‘Relevant Date’) an application for a trade mark was filed under the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)[1] in the name of BHC ORIGIN TRADING (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD (‘Applicant’) with the following details:

   Trade mark number: 2183937

   Trade mark: HAVAIANAS             (‘Trade Mark’)

   Goods: class 3 - see Schedule 1 to these written reasons (‘Applicant’s Goods’)

   [1] Unless specified otherwise, a reference in these reasons to a section is a reference to such in the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) and a reference to a regulation is a reference to such in the Trade Marks Regulations 1995 (Cth).

2. The Trade Mark was examined under s 31 and acceptance was advertised on 4 November 2021. On 24 December 2021 Alpargatas SA (‘Opponent’) filed a Notice of Intention to Oppose. On 20 January 2022 the Opponent filed its Statement of Grounds and Particulars (‘SGP’). On 31 March 2022 the Applicant filed its Notice of Intention to Defend.

3. On 4 July 2022 the Opponent filed its Evidence in Support (‘EIS’) consisting of a declaration of Adalberto Fernandes Granjo, Legal Vice President of the Opponent, dated 1 July 2022, with Annexures A to K and Confidential Annexure L (‘Granjo’). The Applicant did not file Evidence in Answer.

4. On 11 November 2022 the Opponent requested to be heard by written submissions. The Applicant did not request to be heard. On 23 November 2023, the Opponent filed written submissions prepared by Michelle Howe and Francesca Colubriale from Spruson & Ferguson. I am to decide the matter as a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Grounds and Onus

1. The SGP nominated grounds of opposition under ss 42(b), 44, 58A, 60 and 62A. The Opponent presses grounds of opposition under ss 42(b), 44, 60 and 62A and no longer presses s 58A.[2]

   [2] Opponent’s submissions, [10].

2. The Opponent has the onus to prove at least one ground of opposition[3] and the standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities.[4]

   [3] Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network GP [2010] FCAFC 58, [32] (Keane CJ, Stone and Jagot JJ).

   [4] Telstra Corporation Ltd v Phone Directories Co Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 156, [133] (Besanko, Jagot and Edelman JJ).

Evidence

1. Granjo describes the history of the Opponent and its trade marks. The Opponent was founded in 1907 and adopted the word trade mark ‘havaianas’ (‘Opponent’s Trade Mark’) in Brazil in 1962. The word ‘havaianas’ is the Portuguese word for ‘Hawaiians’. The Opponent has used the Opponent’s Trade Mark on thongs throughout Australia since around 1999, including at major online and brick and mortar retailers. The Opponent has several Australian trade marks which contain the word ‘havaianas’ as a main identifying element.[5] The Opponent states that it is also the owner of numerous overseas trade marks which include or consist of the word ‘havaianas’.[6]

   [5] I set these trade marks out at Schedule 2 to these written reasons.

   [6] Granjo, Annexure A.

2. The evidence establishes use of the Opponent’s Trade Mark, usually rendered in the following font: . I consider this to be use of the Opponent’s Trade Mark with additions or alterations which do not substantially affect its identity. Annexure G consists of copies of social media posts dated in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. The social media posts are of promotional displays at Australian surf wear outlets which feature the Opponent’s Trade Mark (or a substantially identical trade mark). From 2017 to 2019, cross promotional merchandise in Australia has included thongs developed and sold in collaboration with major brands such as Disney.[7] Collaboration has also occurred with the artist Ken Done in 2016[8] and fashion label Saint Laurent in 2019 for thongs.[9]

   [7] Granjo, Annexure H, 322.

   [8] Granjo, Annexure K, 397.

   [9] Granjo, Annexure K, 406.

3. The Opponent has also promoted the Opponent’s Trade Mark on its website, social media pages and at promotional events. One promotional event, named the ‘Australia Day Thong Challenge’, takes place once a year and involves participants appearing to purchase and race lilos which bear the word ‘havaianas’ (‘Lilo Event’). The event takes place at a number of different beaches across Australian states. Social media posts show many participants at the promotional events.

4. Confidential Annexure L provides, ‘the number of units of the HAVAIANAS Goods sold by the Opponent and its revenue in Australia between 1 July 2011 and 30 June 2020’.[10] The sales figures provided appear to be for each financial year from 2011 to 2020. The words ‘HAVAIANAS Goods’ are not clearly defined and appear to extend to goods other than just thongs.[11] However, no further detail is provided. I need not further summarise the EIS and refer to it throughout these written reasons where relevant.

Consideration

[10] Granjo, [10].

[11] Granjo, [8]; Opponent’s submissions, [16].

Section 44

1. Section 44 relevantly provides:

   44  Identical etc. trade marks

   (1)  Subject to subsections (3) and (4), an application for the registration of a trade mark (applicant’s trade mark) in respect of goods (applicant’s goods) must be rejected if:

   (a)  the applicant’s trade mark is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to:

   (i)  a trade mark registered by another person in respect of similar goods or closely related services; or

   (ii)  a trade mark whose registration in respect of similar goods or closely related services is being sought by another person; and

   (b)  the priority date for the registration of the applicant’s trade mark in respect of the applicant’s goods is not earlier than the priority date for the registration of the other trade mark in respect of the similar goods or closely related services.

   Note 1:       For deceptively similar see section 10.

   Note 2:       For similar goods see subsection 14(1).

   Note 3:       For priority date see section 12.

   Note 4:       The regulations may provide that an application must also be rejected if the trade mark is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a protected international trade mark or a trade mark for which there is a request to extend international registration to Australia: see Part 17A.

2. The Opponent relies on its registered trade marks 840005, 1178634, 1226160, 1313019, 1326492, 1506715 and 1709483 (‘Section 44 Trade Marks’), the details of each I extract at Schedule 2 to these written reasons. All of the Section 44 Trade Marks have a priority date that is earlier than the Relevant Date and each are in the name of a person other than the Applicant. When I compare the trade marks, all of them contain the word ‘havaianas’. I consider the Trade Mark to be at least deceptively similar to all of the Section 44 Trade Marks.

3. I note that the Section 44 Trade Marks are in respect of goods in classes 9, 18 and/or 25 (‘Opponent’s Goods’). I must next decide whether the Opponent’s Goods are ‘similar’ to any of the Applicant’s Goods. The Opponent’s Goods will be considered similar to the Applicant’s Goods if they are (a) the same as the Opponent’s Goods or (b) of the same description as Opponent’s Goods.[12] The principal factors in a comparison of goods to determine whether they are of the same description are: (1) the nature of the goods, including their origin and characteristics; (2) the uses, including their purpose and (3) the trade channels through which the goods are bought and sold.[13] No single factor is required or conclusive on the issue of similarity between goods and all factors need not be fulfilled to find that the goods are similar. It is also relevant how consumers regard the goods, including practically whether they would view them as originating from the same trade source.

   [12] Section 14(1).

   [13] Re Jellinek’s Application [1946] 63 RPC 59 (Romer J); Goodman Fielder Pte Ltd v Conga Foods Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1808, [280] (Burley J).

4. When I compare the nature, use and trade channels of the Opponent’s Goods with the Applicant’s Goods, none of the Opponent’s Goods are even close to being similar to the Applicant’s Goods. Generally, The Applicant’s cosmetics, household cleaning agents and items such as black-head removal strips, for example, have a very different purpose to the Opponent’s Goods such as bags, clothes and phone cases. These goods are also not usually produced by same manufacturer and are typically sold via different trade channels. No compelling submissions or evidence has been provided by the Opponent on this point and I am not satisfied that any of the Opponent’s Goods are similar to the Applicant’s Goods.

5. Accordingly, the ground of opposition under s 44 has not been established.

Section 60

1. The Opponent relies upon s 60, which provides:

   60  Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia

   The registration of a trade mark in respect of particular goods or services may be opposed on the ground that:

   (a)  another trade mark had, before the priority date for the registration of the first‑mentioned trade mark in respect of those goods or services, acquired a reputation in Australia; and

   (b)  because of the reputation of that other trade mark, the use of the first‑mentioned    trade mark would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

   Note:          For priority date see section 12.

2. To satisfy s 60(a), the Opponent must establish that at the Relevant Date another trade mark had acquired a reputation in Australia. The word ‘reputation’ here means, ‘the recognition of the [trade mark] by the public generally’.[14] Something more than a reputation among a small number of persons is required and the size and extent of the class of persons may vary depending on the circumstances.[15] Reputation may be inferred from a high sales volume, together with substantial advertising expenditures and other promotions, without direct evidence of consumer appreciation of the trade mark.[16] The use must be use such that it indicates a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the person who applied the trade mark to the goods.[17] This is an objective question from the perspective of the ordinary consumer.[18]

   [14] McCormick & Co Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335, [81] (Kenny J) (‘McCormick’).

   [15] Re Conagra Inc v Mccain Foods (Aust) Pty Ltd [1992] FCA 159, [132] (Lockhart J).

   [16] McCormick (n 14) [86].

   [17] E & J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2010] HCA 15, [43] (French CJ, Gummow, Crennan and Bell JJ).

   [18] Shell Company of Australia Ltd v Esso Standard Oil (Australia) Ltd (1963) 109 CLR 407, 425 (Kitto J).

3. The Opponent relies on the use of its trade marks, including the Opponent’s Trade Mark, which consists of the word ‘havaianas’ stylised. The Australian sales figures for goods bearing the Opponent’s Trade Mark provided in the EIS are substantial for every year both in terms of the units sold and the revenue. The distribution and promotion of goods bearing the Opponent’s Trade Mark is wide reaching. There are number of promotional events at the beach, including a ‘Summer Party’, sponsorship of sporting events, promotional goods, a pop-up summer ice-cream stand and an Instagram photograph competition. Images of the Lilo Event at Annexure J show substantial numbers of participants holding lilos bearing the word ‘havaianas’ and standing on beaches across Australia. The documented promotional events are otherwise across numerous locations in Australia. The Opponent’s promotional activities for the Opponent’s Trade Mark have been extensive and there is clearly an awareness of the Opponent’s Trade Mark for those who purchase footwear being thongs. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly in respect of thongs and it is not sufficient demonstrate a reputation beyond such goods. Accordingly, I find that the Opponent’s Trade Mark had acquired a reputation for thongs as at the Relevant Date.

4. The next question is whether, based on that reputation acquired by the Opponent’s Trade Mark, deception or confusion is likely to follow from use of the Trade Mark for the Applicant’s Goods.[19] What is relevant here is Applicant’s Goods[20] and I must consider the hypothetical use of the Trade Mark for the Applicant’s Goods in the whole of Australia. It is enough if a person would be caused to wonder whether the goods derive from the same trade source. Similarity between the Applicant’s Goods and the goods for which the reputation has been established is not a requirement. [21] However, the level of similarity between can be a factor.

   [19] Section 60(b).

   [20] Sym Choon & Co Ltd v Gordon Choons Nuts Ltd (1949) HCA 54, [6] (Latham CJ).

   [21] Qantas Airways Ltd v Edwards [2016] FCA 729, [143] (Yates J); Energy Beverages LLC v Kangaroo Mother Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 999, [163] (O’Callaghan J).

5. I consider the Trade Mark to be substantially identical with the Opponent’s Trade Mark and that the word ‘havaianas’ is distinctive for the Applicant’s Goods. However, the Applicant’s Goods are plainly different to thongs. Examples of particularly different goods include the Applicant’s household and laundry detergents, antiperspirant soaps, mascara and blackhead removal masks. These are very different in nature, use and trade channels to thongs. The Opponent offers no compelling evidence on the issue of any consumer association between the Applicant’s Goods and thongs. Further, I am not satisfied that consumers would be likely to see the source for the reputed thongs as likely extending into the Applicant’s Goods. The extent of the reputation demonstrated by the evidence does not eclipse the differences between the goods. It is the Opponent who has the onus to establish not just a reputation in the Opponent’s Trade Mark but also that because of that reputation, the use of the Trade Mark in respect of the Applicant’s Good’s would be likely to deceive or cause confusion.

6. I am not satisfied that there is a real and tangible danger that use of the Trade Mark in relation to the Applicant’s Goods would be likely to deceive, or cause confusion amongst, a significant or substantial number of relevant consumers.

7. Accordingly, the ground of opposition under s 60 has not been established.

Section 42(b)

1. Section 42(b) provides,

   An application for the registration of a trade mark must be rejected if… its use would be contrary to law

2. The requirement is that I be satisfied that the use of the Trade Mark would not could be contrary to law.[22]

   [22] Advantage-Rent-A-Car Inc v Advantage Car Rental Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 683, [28] (Madgwick J).

3. The Opponent relies on (1) ss 18 and 29 of the Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’)[23] and (2) the common law of passing off. Section 18 of the ACL concerns conduct or representations that have, or are likely to, mislead or deceive. Section 29 of the ACL concerns representations that are false or misleading. There is no material difference between the expression ‘mislead or deceive’ in s 18 of the ACL and ‘false or misleading’ in s 29 of the ACL.[24]

   [23] Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

   [24] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 634, [40] (Allsop CJ).

4. As already indicated in respect of s 60, I am not satisfied that use of the Trade Mark for the Applicant’s Goods is likely to cause deception or confusion with the Opponent’s Trade Mark. It follows that on the stricter test of the ACL,[25] I am not satisfied that use of the Trade Mark is likely to mislead or deceive, or amount to a false or misleading impression under ss 18 and 29 of the ACL. As I have found that s 18 of the ACL has not been contravened, it also follows that use of the Trade Mark does not amount to passing off.[26]

   [25] Weili Mu v Guotai Huang [2021] ATMO 113, [35]-[36] (Hearing Officer Smith).

   [26] Equity Access Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1989] FCA 506, [40] (Hill J).

5. Accordingly, the ground of opposition under s 42(b) has not been established.

Section 62A

1. Section 62A provides that the registration of a trade mark may be opposed on the ground that the application was made in bad faith. For this, I must determine whether, ‘in all the particular circumstances, the [Applicant’s] knowledge was such that his decision to apply for registration at the relevant date would be regarded as in bad faith by persons adopting proper standards’.[27] This question is determined as at the Relevant Date.

   [27] Fry Consulting Pty Ltd v Sports Warehouse Inc (No 2) [2012] FCA 81, [167] (Dodds-Streeton J).

2. In DC Comics v Cheqout Pty Ltd, Bennett J noted that:

   Bad faith is a combined test that involves subjective and objective elements. The subjective element refers to the knowledge of the relevant person at the time of making the application. The objective element requires the decision-maker to decide whether, in the light of that knowledge, the relevant person’s behaviour fell short of acceptable commercial standards.[28]

   [28] [2013] FCA 478, [62].

3. The Opponent submits that given the extensive use and reputation in the Opponent’s Trade Mark, the Applicant ought to have known it was not entitled to seek registration of the Trade Mark. The Opponent has established a reputation for the purposes of s 60. Whilst it is likely that the Applicant would have been aware of the Opponent’s Trade Mark, mere awareness of the Opponent’s Trade Mark does not mean that its conduct of filing the application for the Trade Mark necessarily falls short of acceptable commercial standards. The Opponent has not otherwise provided any evidence to support its assertions under s 62A. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the application for the Trade Mark was made in bad faith.

4. Accordingly, the ground of opposition under s 62A has not been established.

Decision

1. Section 55 relevantly provides:

   55  Decision

   (1)  Unless subsection (3) applies to the proceedings, the Registrar must, at the end, decide:

   (a)  to refuse to register the trade mark; or

   (b)  to register the trade mark (with or without conditions or limitations) in respect of the goods and/or services then specified in the application;

   having regard to the extent (if any) to which any ground on which the application was opposed has been established.

2. The Opponent has not established any ground of opposition. Accordingly, the Trade Mark may proceed to registration after the appeal period expires.

3. If the Registrar is served with a notice of appeal before that time, I direct that registration shall not occur until the appeal has been decided or discontinued and that the disposition of the application should otherwise be in accordance with the Court’s order or discretion.

Costs

1. The Applicant has sought costs. Generally costs follow the event and I see no reason to depart from that principle. I award costs against the Opponent in accordance with schedule 8 to the Regulations.

Benjamin Goldsworthy

Hearing Officer

Oppositions and Hearings

Trade Marks and Designs

15 April 2024

Schedule 1

Anti-sun preparations (cosmetics); Body creams (cosmetics); Colour cosmetics for the eyes; Colour cosmetics for the skin; Colours for cosmetic purposes; Cosmetic acne cleansers; Cosmetic acne creams; Cosmetic creams; Cosmetic dyes; Cosmetic eye gels; Cosmetic eye pencils; Cosmetic kits; Cosmetic moisturisers; Cosmetic oils; Cosmetic pencils; Cosmetic preparations for baths; Cosmetic preparations for cleansing the teeth; Cosmetic preparations for eyelashes; Cosmetic preparations for skin care; Cosmetic preparations for skin tanning; Cosmetic preparations for slimming purposes; Cosmetic preparations for tanning the skin; Cosmetic products for eyebrows; Cosmetic products for eyelashes; Cosmetic products for protection against the sun; Cosmetic products for skin care; Cosmetic skin care products; Cosmetics; Cosmetics for bronzing the skin; Cosmetics for eyebrows; Cosmetics for eyelashes; Cosmetics for personal use; Cosmetics for skin tanning; Cosmetics for suntanning; Cosmetics for protecting the skin from sunburn; Cosmetics for the treatment of dry skin; Cosmetics in the form of nail polish; Cotton pads for cosmetic use; Dermatological cosmetic preparations; Eye moisturisers for cosmetic use; Eyebrow cosmetics; Facial care products (cosmetic); Facial creams (cosmetic); Facial packs (cosmetic); Facial moisturisers (cosmetic); Facial scrubs (cosmetic); Facial washes (cosmetic); Facial wipes impregnated with cosmetics; Liners (cosmetics) for the eyes; Herbal extracts for cosmetic purposes; Mineral oils (cosmetic); Moisturisers (cosmetics); Nail treatment creams (cosmetics); Night creams (cosmetics); Non-medicated cosmetics; Oils for the body (cosmetics); Oils for the breasts (cosmetics); Oils for the skin (cosmetics); Pencils for cosmetic use; Rouge (cosmetic); Self tanning creams (cosmetic); Self tanning lotions (cosmetic); Serum (cosmetic preparations); Skin care creams (cosmetic); Skin care oils (cosmetic); Skin cleaners (cosmetic); Skin cleansing cream (cosmetic); Skin creams (cosmetic); Skincare cosmetics; Sprays for use on the body (cosmetics); Sun blocking cream (cosmetics); Sun barriers (cosmetics); Sun creams (cosmetics); Baby shampoo; Bath powders, not medicated; Body talcum powder; Cosmetic face powders; Cosmetic powder; Make-up powder; Non-medicated foot powders; Non-medicated talcum powder; Talcum powder; Lipstick cases; Lipsticks; Sun blocking lipsticks (cosmetics); Cosmetics in the form of mascara; Mascara; Day creams (non-medicated); Anti-aging creams, not medicated; Detergent strengtheners; Detergents for cleaning purposes, other than for use in manufacturing operations; Detergents for dishwashing; Detergents for domestic use; Detergents having anti-bacterial properties (other than for medical use or for use in manufacturing processes); Detergents having deodorising properties (other than for medical use or for use in manufacturing processes); Detergents having disinfectant properties (other than for medical use or for use in manufacturing processes); Detergents other than for use in manufacturing operations and for medical purposes; Dishwashing detergents; Granular detergents for washing dishes; Household detergents; Laundry detergent; Detergents for laundry use; Bleaches for use on the hair; Colouring lotions for the hair; Cosmetics for use on the hair; Hair cosmetics; Hair lotions (non-medicated); Hair protection lotions (non-medicated); Hair strengthening treatment lotions; Hair styling lotions; Topical preparations for promoting hair growth; Dyes for the hair; Hair care products; Hair colorants; Hair colours; Hair conditioners; Hair cream; Hair dyes; Hair gel; Hair mousse; Hair moisturisers; Hair protection gels; Hair rinses; Hair setting lotion; Hair shampoo; Hair spray; Hair tinters; Hair tonic (non-medicated); Non-medicated hair lotions; Oils for the hair; Sprays (preparations) for the hair; Antiperspirant soap; Bar soap; Bath soap; Body soaps; Cosmetic soaps; Non-medicated soap powders; Deodorant soap; Facial soaps; Laundry soaps; Liquid soaps (non medicated); Non-medicated soap-based handwashes; Non-medicated soaps; Perfumed soaps; Shaving soap; Shower soap; Soap; Soaps for laundry use; Toilet soap; Anti-wrinkle cream; Cosmetic creams for wrinkles; Non-medicated eye wrinkle lotions; Skin whitening creams; Teeth whitening strips; Body moisturisers; Aftershave moisturising cream; After sun moisturisers; Beauty masks; Blackhead removal masks; Cleansing facial masks; Cleansing masks; Cosmetic masks; Eye masks (cosmetic); Facial masks (cosmetic); Gel eye masks; Masks for the face (cosmetic); Facial toners (cosmetic); Skin toners; Hand cream; Non-medicated cream for the hands; Hand barrier creams; Baby body milks; Almond milk for cosmetic purposes; Beauty milks

Schedule 2

Trade mark number	Trade mark	Status	Priority date	Goods and services
840005	HAVAIANAS	Registered	22 June 2000	Class 25: Footwear
1112366	Registered	5 May 2006	Class 14: Jewellery, precious stones, goods made of precious metals in this class, watches and clocks Class 18: Bags, sports bags, backpacks, travelling bags, handbags, wallets, leather goods in this class, umbrellas and parasols Class 24: Textile goods in this class, including bed and table covers Class 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear Class 28: Gymnastic and sporting articles, games, playthings and toys Class 35: Business management services; advertising services; business administration functions; retailing and wholesaling of jewellery, watches, bags and luggage, textile goods, clothing, headgear and footwear, sporting goods, games, toys and playthings Class 41: Entertainment services, including providing sporting and cultural activities; educational services and training services
1178634	Registered	25 May 2007	Class 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear
1226160	HAVAIANAS DAY POCKET	Registered	22 February 2008	Class 18: Bags, sports bags, backpacks, travelling bags, handbags, wallets, leather goods in this class, goods made from imitations of leather, umbrellas and parasols
1313019	HAVAIANAS SOUL COLLECTION	Registered	31 July 2009	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1326492	Registered	15 October 2009	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1499824	HAVAIANAS SEMPRE VERÃO	Removed	29 June 2012	Classes 25: Clothing, headgear, footwear Class 35: Retail and wholesale services including online retail services; retailing and wholesaling of jewellery, watches, bags and luggage, textile goods, clothing, headgear, footwear, sporting goods, games, toys and playthings
1499825	HAVAIANAS ALWAYS SUMMER	Removed	29 June 2012	Classes 25: Clothing, headgear, footwear Class 35: Retail and wholesale services including online retail services; retailing and wholesaling of jewellery, watches, bags and luggage, textile goods, clothing, headgear, footwear, sporting goods, games, toys and playthings
1506715	Registered	3 August  2012	Classes 25: Clothing, footwear and headgear
1548198	Registered	26 September 2012	Class 25: Footwear
1548201	Removed	26 September 2012	Class 25: Footwear
1548203	Registered	9 November 2012	Class 25: Footwear
1552574	HAVAIANAS HIGH	Removed	18 April  2013	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1552575	HAVAIANAS FLAT	Removed	18 April  2013	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1552577	HAVAIANAS SPORT	Removed	18 April 2013	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1552578	HAVAIANAS SURF	Removed	18 April  2013	Class 25: Clothing, footwear, headgear
1598401	Registered	23 December 2013	Class 26: Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles; artificial flowers
1598404	Registered	23 December 2013	Class 26: Lace and embroidery, ribbons and braid; buttons, hooks and eyes, pins and needles; artificial flowers
1709483	HAVAIANAS	Registered	24 July  2015	Class 9: Cell phone cases; spectacle frames; eyeglass cords; eyeglass chains; eyeglass cases; spectacle glasses; anti-glare glasses; sunglasses; goggles for sports; spectacles (optics); eyeglasses