CELEX: 32014M7351
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Commission Decision of 25/09/2014 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.7351 - HENKEL / SPOTLESS GROUP) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

|[pic]                             |EUROPEAN COMMISSION                                                                                      |

                                        Brussels, 25.9.2014
                                        C(2014) 7049 final

                                        |                                                                       |                                                                       |
|To the notifying party:                                                |                                                                       |

Dear Sirs,

Subject:    Case M.7351 – HENKEL/ SPOTLESS GROUP
         Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/2004[1]

    1. On 25 August 2014, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC)  No
       139/2004 by which the undertaking Henkel AG & Co. KGaA, ('Henkel', Germany) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of  the  Merger
       Regulation sole control of Spotless Group SAS, ('Spotless', France) by way of purchase of shares[2]. Henkel is hereinafter referred to  as
       the 'Notifying Party' while Henkel and Spotless are collectively referred to as the 'Parties'.

       THE PARTIES

    2. Henkel is a German manufacturer and supplier of laundry and home care products, in particular laundry  detergents,  fabric  softeners  and
       certain household cleaners. Henkel also produces beauty care and adhesives technology products.

    3. Spotless is a French manufacturer of a range of branded domestic household and laundry care products  including  laundry  additives,  shoe
       care products, insecticides, glass lens cleaners, septic tank care and plant and pet care products.

       THE OPERATION

    4. On 5 June 2014, the Parties concluded a Sale and Purchase Agreement by which Henkel intends to acquire all shares and securities issued by
       Spotless. Post-transaction, Henkel will hold 100% of Spotless’ share capital and  voting  rights  and  will  thus  have  sole  control  of
       Spotless.

    5. The proposed transaction therefore constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

       UNION DIMENSION

    6. The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate world-wide turnover of more than  EUR  […]  million  (Henkel:  EUR  16  355  million;
       Spotless: EUR […] million). Each of them has a Union-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million (Henkel: EUR […]  million;  Spotless:  EUR
       […] million), but they do not achieve more than two-thirds of their aggregate Union-wide turnover within one and the same Member State.

    7. The notified operation therefore has a Union dimension within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

       COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

1 General remarks

    8. The Parties' activities overlap in certain domestic cleaning products, including fabric  care  products  and  household  cleaning  ('HHC')
       products.

2 Relevant product market definitions

1 Categories of domestic cleaning products

    9. In its previous decisions, the Commission has considered that domestic cleaning products can be segmented into four categories, namely: i)
       household cleaners, ii) fabric care products, iii) dishwashing products and iv) other cleaning products.[3]  As  the  Parties'  activities
       only overlap in certain sub-segments of fabric care products and household cleaners, the remaining categories,  dishwashing  products  and
       other cleaning products, are not considered further in this decision.

2 Fabric care products

   10. In the same decisions, the Commission has considered that fabric care products may further be divided into four sub-categories: i) laundry
       detergents, ii) laundry aids iii) fabric conditioners and iv) carpet cleaners.[4]

   11. In Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, the Commission found indications that customers will switch from a  branded  fabric  care  product  to  a
       private label of the same product when the price for the branded product is substantially increased. Consequently, the Commission included
       private label products in the same market as branded products in its assessment in that case as well as in the later Unilever /  Sara  Lee
       case.[5] The Notifying Party agrees with this approach.

   12. As the Parties' activities only overlap in laundry aids and carpet cleaners, the other sub-categories of  fabric  care  products,  laundry
       detergents and fabric conditioners, are not considered further in this decision.

1 Laundry aids

   13. Laundry aids are laundry additives ('LAD') that are used in fabric care applications to supplement detergents and conditioners in order to
       enhance the fabric cleaning or conditioning result (for example stain removing, colour catching, whitening, etc.).  LAD  products  include
       primarily stain removers, colour catching sheets, colour changers, whiteners, additives with an antibacterial function and bleaches, which
       have a whitening/decolouring, antibacterial and stain removing functionality.

   14. The Parties' activities only overlap with respect to a particular type of LADs, namely LAD bleaches. Those bleaches are used to whiten  or
       decolour fabrics, remove stains and disinfect fabrics through a chemical reaction.

   15. However, the Notifying Party argues that LAD bleaches do not constitute a distinct relevant product market. Instead, it submits  that  LAD
       bleaches and HHC bleaches can be used interchangeably in many applications. Moreover, the Notifying Party submits that  there  is  also  a
       high degree of supply-side substitutability between LAD and HHC bleaches: LAD and HHC bleaches may both be based on, among others,  sodium
       hypochlorite, and suppliers are easily able to switch production between them just by changing the viscosity, perfume and labelling.

   16. In addition, the Notifying Party submits that consumers can substitute LAD bleach products by  non-bleach  whitening,  decolouring,  stain
       removing and hygiene products and vice versa.

   17. Nonetheless, the exact product market definition can be left open as the proposed transaction does not give rise to  serious  doubts  even
       under the narrowest feasible product market definition.

2 Carpet cleaners

   18. Carpet cleaners are products that are specifically labelled and marketed to clean carpets in  households.  In  a  previous  decision,  the
       Commission has considered that carpet cleaners constitute a separate relevant product market.[6]

   19. The Notifying Party submits that the relevant product market is broader than only carpet cleaners as consumers can use any kind  of  stain
       removers, detergents, soap, dishwashing liquids or even hair shampoos and shower gels to remove carpet stains or odours.

   20. The results of the market investigation do not support the Notifying Party's claims about demand-side  substitutability  at  the  end-user
       level. Instead, a clear majority of both customers and competitors responded that consumers were not likely to substitute carpet  cleaners
       with any other product even when faced with a permanent increase of 5–10% in the price of carpet cleaners.[7]

   21. Nonetheless, the exact product market definition can be left open as the proposed transaction does not give rise to  serious  doubts  even
       under the narrowest feasible product market definition.

3 Household cleaning products

   22. The Commission has in previous decisions considered that HHC products may be further divided into i) multipurpose cleaners used  to  clean
       non-permeable surfaces and suitable for general household use, ii) lavatory cleaners used for  cleaning  and  removal  of  bad  odours  in
       lavatories, ii) polishes and waxes used to clean, shine and protect furniture and wooden or tiled floors, and iv) metal polishes  used  to
       clean and shine metals.[8] In those decisions, the Commission assessed private label products as  part  of  the  same  market  as  branded
       products.[9]

   23. The Notifying Party nonetheless submits that different HHC products can be used in a variety of ways and  applications  because  of  their
       chemical composition and that consumers sometimes use differently marketed HHC products interchangeably if the  products  have  a  similar
       function. To this end, the Notifying Party has  distinguished  five  different  main  functionalities  of  various  products,  namely  (i)
       degreasing, (ii) descaling, (iii) bleaching, (iv) multi-purpose cleaning and (v) special-purpose polishing and waxing.

   24. According to the Notifying Party, the Parties’ activities overlap and result in potentially affected markets  in  five  HHC  product  sub-
       segments, namely: (i) metal polishes, (ii) HHC bleaches, (iii) multi-purpose cleaners, (iv) floor cleaners and (v) power descalers.

   25. Metal polishes: Metal polishes are used to clean and brighten metals. The Notifying Party submits that  the  relevant  product  market  is
       nonetheless much broader than only metal polishes as consumers would also use various other products  to  clean  metals,  namely  abrasive
       creams, degreasers and multi-purpose cleaners.

   26. The results of the market investigation do not support the Notifying Party's claims about demand-side  substitutability  at  the  end-user
       level. Instead, a clear majority of both customers and competitors responded that consumers were not likely to substitute  metal  polishes
       with any other product even when faced with a permanent increase of 5–10% in the price of metal polishes.[10]

   27. HHC bleaches: Bleaches are products that can be used to clean and disinfect various surfaces in a household. They can be used for the same
       purposes as lavatory cleaners but, according to the Notifying Party, also for cleaning other surfaces such as the bathroom and floors that
       could also be cleaned with multi-purpose cleaners as well.

   28. The Notifying Party nonetheless considers that HHC bleaches do not constitute a separate relevant product market.  Instead,  LAD  bleaches
       would belong to the same relevant product market because of both supply- and demand-side substitutability. Moreover, the  Notifying  Party
       submits that various non-bleaching products, such as multi-purpose cleaners, should be included in the same relevant product market.

   29. Multipurpose cleaners: Multipurpose cleaners are designed to clean various non-permeable surfaces in  a  household.  The  Notifying  Party
       submits that since they are designed for all areas in a household, consumers also use other products that  are  marketed  for  a  specific
       area/room (kitchen, bathroom, floors) as well as for a specifically required cleaning result (bleaches and descalers) to  clean  the  same
       area or surface. There would therefore be some degree of substitutability between multi-purpose cleaners and 'special'  cleaners  marketed
       for specific applications even if substitutability was not fully bi-directional.

   30. Floor cleaners: Floor cleaners are universal cleaners designed to clean floors in a household.  The  Notifying  Party  argues  that  floor
       cleaners are, however, in fact multi-purpose cleaners only marketed for floor cleaning  and  do  not,  therefore,  constitute  a  separate
       relevant product market.

   31. Power descalers: Descalers are products used to descale hard surfaces, for example in the toilet/lavatory and the bathroom. The  Notifying
       Party nonetheless submits that descalers do not constitute a separate relevant market  but  that  at  least  other  lavatory  and  general
       bathroom cleaning products should be included in the same market. According to the Notifying Party, when a consumer  needs  a  product  to
       remove limescale in, for example, the lavatory, the consumer may use a 'power descaler' or  a  bathroom  cleaner  which  typically  has  a
       descaling functionality and they should therefore include all cleaning products with a descaling function irrespective  of  how  they  are
       labelled.

   32. Nonetheless, the exact product market definitions can be left open as the proposed transaction does not give rise to serious  doubts  even
       under the narrowest feasible product market definitions.

3 Relevant geographic market definitions

   33. The Commission has previously left open whether the market for the products relevant for the present case  are  EEA-wide  or  national  in
       scope.[11]

   34. The Notifying Party argues that there is a clear trend towards EEA-wide markets for consumer products.

   35. Nonetheless, the exact geographic market definitions can be left open as the proposed transaction does not give  rise  to  serious  doubts
       even under the narrowest, that is to say national, geographic dimension.

4 Competitive assessment

1 Horizontal aspects

   36. The proposed transaction gives rise to seven potentially affected markets: (i) carpet cleaners in France, (ii) metal polishes  in  Sweden,
       (iii) LAD bleaches in Spain, (iv) HHC bleaches in Spain, (v) floor cleaners in Hungary, (vi) multi-purpose cleaners in Finland  and  (vii)
       power descalers in Germany. There are no affected markets at the EEA level.

1 Carpet cleaners in France

       The Notifying Party's view

   37. Henkel is active in the market for carpet cleaners in France with its brand MiR whereas Spotless sells its carpet cleaner under the  brand
       Eau Ecarlate. According to the Notifying Party, Henkel had a market share (by value) of about [40-50] % while Spotless' market  share  was
       only about [0-5] % in 2013. However, Spotless purchased the K2r brand in 2013 from a company called Hedoga,[…]. According to the Notifying
       Party, K2r had a market share of about [5-10] % in 2013. If the market shares of that product were attributed to Spotless'  market  share,
       the Parties' combined market share in 2013 would have reached [50-60] %.

                                           Table 1   Market shares - carpet cleaners in France (value)

|                         |2012                    |2013                    |2014 (Year to 15 June)      |
|Henkel (MiR)             |[40-50] %               |[40-50] %               |[40-50] %                   |
|Spotless (Eau Ecarlate)  |[0-5] %                 |[0-5] %                 |[0-5] %                     |
|S.C. Johnson (K2r)       |[5-10] %                |[5-10] %                |[5-10] %                    |
|Combined                 |[50-60] %               |[50-60] %               |[50-60] %                   |
|Reckitt-Benckiser        |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %                   |
|Private label            |[20-30] %               |[20-30] %               |[20-30] %                   |
|Others                   |[0-5]%                  |[5-10] %                |[5-10] %                    |

        Source: The Notifying Party

   38. The Notifying Party argues that while most carpet cleaners are quite similar in properties and formulation, there are differences  between
       Henkel’s products and the K2r-branded carpet cleaners. For example, the K2r carpet cleaner is marketed with an additional benefit,  namely
       protection against stains and impregnation of fibres, while Henkel’s carpet cleaner does not offer such a technology and focuses on  stain
       removing, deodorising and protecting the colours and fibres.

   39. Moreover, the Notifying Party argues that the Parties face competition from a number of sophisticated suppliers of branded carpet  cleaner
       products such as Reckitt Benckiser (with a market share of [10-20] % in  2013)  and  from  retailers  offering  their  own  private  label
       products, which accounted for a value share of [20-30] % of all carpet cleaner sales in France in 2013. In addition, there would be strong
       countervailing buying power by a number of large retailers according to the Notifying Party.

       Commission's assessment

   40. First, the Commission notes that combined market shares of the Parties have been decreasing in the last two and a half years, from [50-60]
       % in 2012 to [50-60] % in mid-2014. This decrease results from the loss of sales of both the  Eau  Ecarlate  and  the  K2r  brands,  which
       together represented [10-20] % in 2012 and now only represent [5-10]% of the market. In contrast, private label represents  a  substantial
       part of the market ([20-30] % in the first half of 2014) and have slightly increased in the last years. Private  labels  can  be  used  by
       retailers to exert pressure on branded products suppliers, including the merged entity, and to restrict their ability to raise prices.

   41. Respondents to the market investigation have also confirmed that there are several alternatives  to  the  Parties'  products.  The  brands
       mentioned by customers include Mc Bride, Kozmo, Colep, BFC, HG, Starmax as well as the private  labels  of  the  retailers.[12]  Moreover,
       while market participants considered that MiR, Eau Ecarlate and K2r are in general similar products (in terms of  functionalities,  target
       customers and presence in retail shops),[13] the majority of both  customers  and  competitors  nonetheless  indicated  that  the  closest
       competing products to the each of Parties' brands are the retailer's private labels and Reckitt Benckiser's Vanish brand.[14]  Respondents
       to the market investigation also considered that there are no significant entry barriers to the introduction of  new  carpet  cleaners  in
       France.[15]

   42. Finally, a clear majority of both customers and competitors did not express significant concerns  related  to  the  proposed  transaction.
       While one customer referred to possible price increases, even that customer considered that several competing suppliers would remain  even
       after the proposed transaction.[16]

   43. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed transaction does not raise serious  doubts  in  the  market  for  carpet
       cleaners in France.

2 Metal Polishes in Sweden

       The Notifying Party's view

   44. Henkel is active in the market for metal polishes in Sweden with its brand Häxan whereas Spotless sells metal polishes  under  the  Bistro
       brand. According to the Notifying Party, Henkel had a market share (by value) of [40-50] % in 2013 whereas Spotless had a market share  of
       [0-5] % in 2013. Other competitors included S.C. Johnson ([20-30] %), Herdins Färgverk ([10-20] %) and W.J. Hagerty ([10-20] %).

                                            Table 2   Market shares – metal polishes is Sweden (value)

|                         |2011                    |2012                    |2013                        |
|Henkel                   |[40-50] %               |[40-50] %               |[40-50] %                   |
|Spotless                 |[0-5] %                 |[0-5] %                 |[0-5] %                     |
|Combined                 |[50-60] %               |[40-50] %               |[50-60] %                   |
|S.C. Johnson             |[20-30] %               |[20-30] %               |[20-30] %                   |
|Herdins Färgverk         |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %                   |
|WJ Hagerty & Sons        |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %               |[10-20] %                   |
|Others                   |[5-10] %                |[0-5] %                 |[0-5] %                     |

        Source: The Notifying Party

   45. According to the Notifying Party, the total size of the Swedish market for metal polishes is very small with an approximate value of  only
       EUR […] million. The Parties' own aggregate sales to retailers amounted to only EUR […] million in 2013. Consequently, winning  or  losing
       even a low-value deal could have a notable effect on market shares.

   46. The Bistro brand is owned by the Danish manufacturer […].

   47. The Notifying Party also submits that Häxan and Bistro are marketed very differently since Häxan is positioned as a premium product  while
       Bistro is positioned in a lower price segment. Moreover, Henkel will continue to  face  strong  countervailing  buyer  power  as  Henkel's
       largest Swedish customer accounted for [60-70] % of all its sales of metal polishes the country while the four largest customers in Sweden
       accounted for [90-100] % of its sales of metal polishes.

       Commission's assessment

   48. The Swedish market for metal polishes is characterised by the strong presence of Henkel's  brand  Häxan  already  prior  to  the  proposed
       transaction. A number of respondents to the market investigation noted that Häxan has been on the market for a considerable length of time
       and has a high degree of brand awareness amongst purchasers of metal polishes. However, the same did not apply to Bistro, which the  clear
       majority of respondents did not consider to enjoy any special advantages on the market.[17]

   49. While numerous respondents to the market investigation referred to Bistro and Häxan being close competitors to  each  other,[18]  a  clear
       majority of customers responding nonetheless indicated that a number of  alternative  suppliers  and  brands  existed,  supplied  by  both
       domestic and multinational undertakings. The brands mentioned by the customers included, for instance, MP52 and Mr Muscle.[19] While  some
       of the alternatives mentioned are not on the market in Sweden at present, customers nonetheless referred to  them  as  possible  solutions
       should the merged entity try to raise prices. Moreover, a customer also indicated that it had already been offered such a product  by  its
       foreign supplier.[20]

   50. A majority of respondents to the market investigation, including both large and smaller customers, indicated that they saw no  competition
       concerns as a result of the proposed transaction.[21]

   51. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed transaction does not raise  serious  doubts  in  the  market  for  metal
       polishes in Sweden.

3 Other markets

   52. The Notifying Party's estimates for the Parties' market shares in the other potentially affected markets are shown in the table below.

                                        Table 3 - Parties' market shares in other markets in 2013 (value)

|Market                             |Henkel's market share     |Spotless' market share    |Combined                  |
|LAD bleaches, Spain                |[50-60] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[50-60] %                 |
|HHC bleaches, Spain                |[30-40] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[40-50] %                 |
|Bleaches (combined), Spain         |[40-50] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[40-50] %                 |
|Floor cleaners, Hungary            |[50-60] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[50-60] %                 |
|Power descalers, Germany           |[20-30] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[20-30] %                 |
|Multi-purpose cleaners, Finland    |[30-40] %                 |[0-5] %                   |[30-40] %                 |

    Source: The Notifying Party.

   53. In each case, the increment in market share brought about by the proposed transaction is negligible at one percentage point  or  less.  As
       such, the proposed transaction is unlikely to lead to a significant change in market structure.

   54. Customers responding to the market investigation did also not refer to any substantiated competition concerns with respect to any  of  the
       markets in question.[22] In this regard, they confirmed that the merged entity would continue to face competition from a sufficient number
       of alternative suppliers in each of the markets concerned, including those for bleaches in Spain and floor cleaners in Hungary  where  the
       merged entity would reach its highest market shares. Some customers also referred to the market position of private label products.[23]

   55. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed transaction does not raise serious doubts with respect  to  any  of  the
       markets concerned.

       2 Conglomerate aspects

   56. According to a number of previous Commission decisions, conglomerate effects might arise  in  cases  where  the  merging  parties  hold  a
       significant portfolio of brands and have large market shares in several product markets where their activities do not overlap.[24]  Henkel
       and Spotless each offer a wide range of household cleaning products and their respective portfolios will be combined as a  result  of  the
       proposed transaction.

   57. The Notifying Party nonetheless submits that this does not create scope for tying or bundling strategies. Moreover,  the  Notifying  Party
       would continue to face customers with substantial purchasing power, as well as significant competitive  pressure  from  major  competitors
       with similar product ranges.

   58. Most of the customers responding to the market investigation have not raised concerns related to conglomerate effects, and  some  of  them
       indicated that the proposed transaction could be beneficial if Henkel were able to offer a wide range of cleaning products using Spotless'
       know-how.[25] Others pointed to the merged entity being able to use its increased buyer power to achieve lower input materials  costs.[26]
       Some customers however raised the concern that the merged entity would hold a strong portfolio of cleaning products and  that  this  would
       increase the dependency of retailers on the merged entity.

   59. Respondents to the market investigation have however confirmed that whilst each of the  Parties  already  has  a  large  portfolio  today,
       retailers will continue to have alternative suppliers in all of the  affected  markets  discussed  in  this  decision.  These  alternative
       suppliers include other multinational producers that also can offer a wide range of products and have strong brand  portfolios.  Moreover,
       retailers will continue selling private label products which allows them to exert pressure on the merged entity.  The  risk  of  portfolio
       effects resulting from the proposed transaction is mitigated considerably by the ability and  incentive  of  retailers  to  exercise  such
       threat.

   60. In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the proposed transaction does not raise serious doubts due to conglomerate aspects.

       CONCLUSION

       For the above reasons, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to  declare  it  compatible  with  the
       internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

                                        For the Commission
                                        (signed)
                                        Joaquín ALMUNIA
                                        Vice-President

-----------------------
[1]   OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ('the Merger Regulation'). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the  European  Union
      ('TFEU') has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of 'Community' by 'Union' and 'common market' by  'internal  market'.  The
      terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.

[2]   Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C293, 2.9.2014, p. 16.

[3]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paras 7 and 15, and COMP/M.5658 – Unilever / Sara Lee, paragraphs 1261–1263 and 1375–1377.

[4]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 7 and 15, and COMP/M.5658 – Unilever/Sara Lee, paragraphs 1263 and 1270–1277.

[5]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 9 and 23. Private label products were also included in the market in the  assessment
      of fabric care products in Unilever/Sara Lee, see. COMP/M.5658 – Unilever/Sara Lee, e.g. paragraphs 1285 and 1291.

[6]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 7 and 15.

[7]   Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, question 1 and to Questionnaire 3 – Competitors of carpet cleaners  in
      France, question 1.

[8]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 7 and 15, and COMP/M.5658 – Unilever/Sara Lee, paragraphs 1375–7.

[9]   COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 9 and 23, and COMP/M.5658 – Unilever/Sara Lee, paragraphs 1382 and 1384.

[10]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, question 1 and to Questionnaire 4 – Competitors of  metal  polishes  in
      Sweden, question 1.

[11]  COMP/M.1632 – Reckitt + Colman / Benckiser, paragraphs 16 – 19, and COMP/M.5658 – Unilever/Sara Lee,, paragraphs 1378–1380.

[12]  Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, question 5.

[13]  Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, questions 8 and 9 and to  Questionnaire  3  –  Competitors  in  carpet
       cleaners in France, questions 7 and 8.

[14]  Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, question 7 and to Questionnaire 3 – Competitors in carpet cleaners  in
       France, question 6.

[15]  Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, question 13 and to Questionnaire 3 – Competitors  in  carpet  cleaners
       in France, question 11.

[16]        Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, questions 15 and 17.

[17]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, questions 10 and 11; and replies to questionnaire 4  –  competitors  in
       metal polishes in Sweden, question 13.

[18]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, questions 8 and 9; and replies to  Questionnaire  4  –  Competitors  in
       metal polishes in Sweden, questions 10 and 11.

[19]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, question 18.

[20]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, question 18.

[21]  Replies to Questionnaire 2 – Customers of metal polishes in Sweden, questions 15 and 17; and replies to Questionnaire 3  –  Competitors  in
       metal polishes in Sweden, questions 17 and 19.

[22]  Replies to Questionnaire to customers in Finland, Hungary, Germany and Spain, questions 1, 3 and 4.

[23]  Replies to Questionnaire to customers in Finland, Hungary, Germany and Spain, question 3.

[24]  See for example COMP/M.3732 – Procter & Gamble / Gillette, paragraph 110, COMP/M.938 – Guinness / Grand Metropolitan, paragraphs 40-42.

[25]  Replies to Questionnaire 1 – Customers of carpet cleaners in France, question 12; replies  to  questionnaire  2  –  Competitors  in  carpet
       cleaners in France, question 10; replies to Questionnaire 3 – Customers  of  metal  polishes  in  Sweden,  question  12;  and  replies  to
       Questionnaire 4 – Competitors in metal polishes in Sweden, question 14.

[26]  According to the Guidelines on the assessment of non-horizontal mergers under the Council  Regulation  on  the  control  of  concentrations
       between undertakings, OJ C 265, 18.10.2008, paragraph 118, conglomerate mergers may produce cost savings in the form of economies of scope
       (either on the production or the consumption side), yielding an inherent advantage to supplying the goods together rather than apart.

-----------------------
 In the published version of this decision, some information has been omitted pursuant to Article 17(2) of Council Regulation (EC)  No  139/2004
 concerning non-disclosure of business secrets and other confidential information.  The  omissions  are  shown  thus  […].  Where  possible  the
 information omitted has been replaced by ranges of figures or a general description.

                                                                  PUBLIC VERSION

                                                                 MERGER PROCEDURE