CELEX: 32013M7057
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-27 00:00:00
Title: Commission Decision of 27/11/2013 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No COMP/M.7057 - SUNTORY / GLAXOSMITHKLINE (RIBENA & LUCOZADE SOFT DRINKS BUSINESS)) according to Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (Only the English text is authentic)

|[pic]                             |EUROPEAN COMMISSION                                                                                      |

                                       Brussels, 27.11.2013
                                       C(2013) 8567

                                        [pic]

                                        [pic]

|To the notifying party:                                                |                                                                       |

Dear Sir/Madam,

Subject:    Case No COMP/M.7057 - SUNTORY/ GLAXOSMITHKLINE (RIBENA AND LUCOZADE SOFT DRINKS BUSINESS)
         Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 139/2004[1]

    1) On 22 October 2013, the European Commission received a notification  of  a  proposed  concentration  pursuant  to  Article  4  of  Council
       Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 by which Suntory Beverage & Food Limited ("SBF", Japan), ultimately controlled  by  Suntory  Holdings  Limited
       ("Suntory", Japan), acquires sole control of the whole of the Ribena and Lucozade soft drinks business (the "Target Business", the  United
       Kingdom) from GlaxoSmithKline plc ("GSK", United Kingdom), by way of purchase of  assets.  Suntory  is  hereinafter  referred  to  as  the
       "Notifying Party". Suntory and the Target Business are collectively referred to as the "Parties".

       THE PARTIES

    2) Suntory is a Japanese company active in the following  businesses  worldwide:  food  and  non-alcoholic  beverages,  restaurants,  sports,
       flowers, service companies and cross-functional companies. Suntory is active in the soft drinks sector  in  the  EEA  mainly  through  its
       subsidiary Orangina Schweppes Group. It has a number of brands such as Orangina, Oasis, Trina, Sunny Delight, Snapple and V Energy.

    3) The Target Business is active in the manufacture, distribution and sale of energy and sports drinks under the Lucozade brand and a  number
       of soft drinks (non-carbonated juice drinks, still drinks, dilutes and carbonated flavoured drinks) under the Ribena brand, mainly in  the
       United Kingdom ("UK") and Ireland. The Target Business comprises a factory based in Coleford (UK) and various related assets.

       THE OPERATION AND CONCENTRATION

    4) On 9 September 2013, SBF and GSK entered into a sale and purchase agreement according to which Suntory will acquire sole control over  the
       Target Business. The proposed transaction therefore constitutes a concentration within the  meaning  of  Article  3(1)(b)  of  the  Merger
       Regulation.

       EU DIMENSION

    5) The undertakings concerned have a combined aggregate worldwide turnover of more than EUR 5 000 million[2] (Suntory: EUR  […];  the  Target
       Business: EUR […]). Each of them has an EU-wide turnover in excess of EUR 250 million (Suntory: EUR […]; the Target  Business:  EUR  […]).
       Only the Target Business achieved more than two-thirds of its aggregate EU-wide turnover  within  one  and  the  same  Member  State.  The
       notified operation therefore has an EU dimension.

       RELEVANT MARKETS

1 Introduction

    6) The proposed transaction primarily concerns the manufacture, distribution and sale of  non-alcoholic  beverages  ("NABs")  to  the  retail
       sector. NABs can be broadly divided into carbonated soft drinks ("CSDs") and non-carbonated soft drinks ("NCSDs").

    7) Within NABs, the Parties mainly overlap in branded non-cola-flavoured CSDs and in particular in branded carbonated energy drinks  sold  to
       retailers.  In addition, the Parties also overlap in a potential market for carbonated and non-carbonated energy and sports drinks.[3]

2 Relevant product market definition

1 Type of NABs

1 Non-cola-flavoured carbonated soft drinks (CSDs)

    8) In previous decisions, the Commission has consistently considered a distinction between the supply of CSDs and NCSDs.[4] With  respect  to
       CSDs, the Commission has also  differentiated  between  non-cola-flavoured  CSDs  and  cola-flavoured  CSDs.[5]  Furthermore,  in  Cadbury
       Schweppes/Pernod Richard[6] the Commission concluded that individual flavours of non-cola CSDs may constitute  distinct  product  markets,
       but ultimately left the market definition open.

    9) The market investigation confirmed that CSDs and NCSDs belong to separate markets based on both demand-  and  supply-side  considerations.
       Furthermore, the market investigation also indicated that cola-flavoured and  non-cola-flavoured  CSDs  may  constitute  distinct  product
       markets since customers are unanimous in considering that demand would not switch from non-cola-flavoured to cola-flavoured CSDs following
       a 5-10% price  increase.  Regarding  potential  segmentations  based  on  individual  non-cola  flavours,  the  market  investigation  was
       inconclusive, though the majority of retailers have not indicated that flavours are essential for end-customers.

   10) In any event, for the purposes of the assessment of the notified  operation,  the  question  whether  cola-flavoured  CSDs  and  non-cola-
       flavoured CSDs belong to separate markets, as well as the question whether a  potential  market  for  non-cola-flavoured  CSDs  should  be
       further segmented based on individual flavours, can be left open since the notified operation does not raise  serious  doubts  as  to  its
       compatibility with the internal market even under the narrowest market definition.

2 Energy and sports drinks

   11) The Parties' activities overlap in carbonated energy drinks. In addition, the Target Business is active in still sports  drinks.  In  this
       respect, the Notifying Party submits that sports and energy drinks should not be viewed separately. In particular, it considers that still
       sports drinks should not be considered separately from carbonated sports drinks or energy drinks. It argues that sports and energy  drinks
       are purchased by both sports participants and non-participants for both sporting and non-sporting occasions. It also notes that sports and
       energy drinks compete with CSDs such as Coca-Cola and other soft drinks brands (e.g. Pepsi, Fanta or Tango).

   12) There are no previous Commission decisions specifically concerning carbonated energy drinks.[7]

   13) According to the Notifying Party, sports drinks serve to rehydrate and replenish lost energy and are usually isotonic (i.e.  containing  a
       similar concentration of dissolved particles, such as salts and sugars,  as  human  bodily  fluids),  but  can  also  be  hypotonic  (i.e.
       containing a lower number of dissolved particles than human bodily  fluids)  or  hypertonic  (containing  a  higher  number  of  dissolved
       particles than human bodily fluids). Energy drinks are beverages with a concentrated source of carbohydrates and sometimes caffeine, which
       are usually hypertonic and are used to top up energy levels.

   14) The wide majority of respondents to the market investigation have confirmed the characteristics of sports and energy drinks  described  by
       the Notifying Party.[8]

   15) With respect to whether (i) energy and sport drinks (still or carbonated) would constitute a distinct market from (ii)  non-cola-flavoured
       CSDs or even a wider market for CSDs, the answers to the market investigation were mixed. While some customers  and  competitors  tend  to
       view them separately in terms of target groups (younger profile for energy users), end use (energy  and  sport  drinks  offer  a  function
       beyond hydration), formats (energy drinks tend to be sold as single serve or in impulse packs), and prices (energy and  sport  drinks  are
       more expensive), some consider that these differences are not significant.[9]

   16) With respect to a distinction between (i) energy drinks and (ii) sport drinks, on the one hand the  market  investigation  indicated  that
       there are no significant differences between the two products in terms of consumption  habits,  prices  per  litre  or  targeted  consumer
       groups,[10] but on the other hand it indicated that customer switching is unlikely since energy drinks and sport drinks offer a  different
       benefit to the consumers (i.e. energy drinks are intended to provide energy boost, while sport drinks are intended to replace fluids  lost
       during exercise).

   17) From a supply side-perspective, the market investigation indicated that switching production between carbonated drinks  is  possible,  but
       may require capital investment for changing the sizes of cans or for investing in pasteurization technology to heat-treat the beverages if
       preservatives are used. On the other hand, a switch from non-carbonated  to  carbonated  drinks  would  in  addition  require  substantial
       investment on carbonating equipment. Furthermore, any switch would require changes in recipes and labelling.[11]

   18) In any event, for the purposes of the assessment of the  notified  operation,  the  exact  delineation  of  the  relevant  product  market
       concerning carbonated energy drinks can be left open. Irrespective of whether carbonated energy drinks constitute a separate market or are
       part of wider markets, such as (i) carbonated and non-carbonated sports and energy drinks, (ii)  non-cola-flavoured  CSDs,  or  (iii)  all
       CSDs, the notified operation does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market.

2 Private label vs. branded products

   19) In the dairy products markets, the Commission envisaged a potential distinction between branded products and private labels,  although  in
       some instances it came to the conclusion that they belong to the same market.[12]

   20) The Notifying Party submits that, regarding both CSDs and NCSDs, private label products constitute a significant competitive constraint to
       branded products, and that branded and private label products may be considered as part of the same market.

   21) The market investigation indicated that branded prices are higher and that customers would not switch from branded to private  label  NABs
       or carbonated energy drinks.[13] While some competitors consider that private labels compete with branded NABs/carbonated  energy  drinks,
       others consider that brand loyalty would deter consumer switching.  Regarding supply-side substitutability, though  a  supplier  would  be
       able to switch production from private label to branded NABs or carbonated energy  drinks,  some  capital  investment  into  building  and
       promoting the brand is required.[14]

   22) In any event, for the purposes of the assessment of the notified operation, the question whether private labels and brands are part of the
       same market can be left open since the notified operation does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the  internal  market
       even under the narrowest market definition.

3 Off-trade vs. on-trade distribution channel

   23) The Commission has in previous decisions considered a further segmentation based on whether a product is sold through the on-trade/out-of-
       home channel (i.e. hotels, bars, cafes) or through the off-trade channel (i.e. sales to grocery retailers) given that  product  offerings,
       packaging formats and sizes, profit margins, prices and distribution systems  tend  to  differ  between  the  two  distribution  channels.
       However, this distinction was ultimately left open.[15]

   24) The Notifying Party considers that the distinction between the supply to the on-trade customers and the off-trade customers can  sometimes
       be blurred, as for example wholesale customers can supply CSDs and NCSDs to both the on-trade and off-trade channels.

   25) In any event, for the purposes of the assessment of the notified operation, the question whether there are distinct markets for the supply
       to the on-trade and off-trade channels can be left open since the notified operation does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility
       with the internal market even under the narrowest market definition.

4 Type of packaging

   26) The Commission has not previously defined separate markets for types of packaging (e.g.  PET,  cans,  glasses,  carton)  when  considering
       transactions involving the acquisition of soft drinks brands, but rather for transactions  involving  the  acquisition  of  private  label
       bottling companies.[16]

   27) In any event, for the purpose of the assessment of the notified operation, the exact delineation of the relevant  product  market  can  be
       left open as the notified operation would not raise serious doubts as to its  compatibility  with  the  internal  market  even  under  the
       narrowest market definition.

3 Relevant geographic market definition

   28) According to the Commission’s decisional practice,[17] the market for the  production  and  supply  of  NABs  to  off-trade  and  on-trade
       customers is national in scope in light of differentiated consumer preferences between  countries,  the  importance  of  national  brands,
       significance of marketing and advertising expenses, and the significance of transport costs in relative terms to the final  value  of  the
       product.

   29) The Notifying Party concurs with the Commission's decisional practice submitting that the relevant geographic markets for  the  supply  of
       NABs and its potential segments are national in scope.

   30) According to the market investigation, the markets for the supply of branded CSDs and branded energy and  sport  drinks  are  national  in
       scope taking into account that: (i) tenders are generally national in scope;[18] (ii) brand preferences differ across  EEA  countries;[19]
       (iii) prices appear to vary across Member States and depend on a multitude of factors including macroeconomic drivers such  as  inflation,
       disposable income and exchange rates;[20] and (iv) national sales forces are  a  pre-requisite  in  the  countries  where  retailers  have
       outlets.[21]

   31) Therefore, for the purposes of the assessment of the notified operation, the relevant geographic market is defined as national.

       COMPETITIVE ASSESSMENT

   32) The proposed transaction only leads to affected markets in the UK and Ireland in  the  following  off-trade  markets:[22]  (i)  carbonated
       energy drinks; (ii) carbonated and non-carbonated energy and sport drinks; and (iii)  non-cola  flavoured  CSDs.   The  Parties'  combined
       market shares (and increments) would not be significantly different if a distinction were made  between  the  branded  and  private  label
       segments, though market shares are slightly higher where private labels are excluded since the Parties are not active in private labels.

   33) Suntory is present in the UK and Irish off-trade markets for carbonated energy drinks through its subsidiary Frucor,  which  produces  the
       drink V Energy. It does not have any sports drinks brand, but it completes its non-cola-flavoured CSD portfolio with the  brand  Orangina,
       available in a range of citrus flavours. The Target Business competes with V Energy  through  the  brands  Lucozade  Energy  and  Lucozade
       Revive. In sports drinks, it is present through the brands Lucozade Sport and Lucozade Sport Lite,  whereas  its  portfolio  of  non-cola-
       flavoured CSDs also includes the Ribena Sparkling brand, available in raspberry and blackcurrant flavours.

   34) The tables below present the Parties' combined market shares in the UK and Irish off-trade segments under the various  potential  relevant
       product market definitions.[23]

            Table 1 – Parties' market shares (by volume) in the supply of branded NABs to the off-trade channels in the UK and Ireland

|Relevant market                                                     |Suntory        |Target Business |Combined            |
|Carbonated energy drinks                           |UK              |[0-5]%         |[40-50]%        |[40-50]%            |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[50-60]%        |[50-60]%            |
|Energy and sport drinks                            |UK              |[0-5]%         |[50-60]%        |[50-60]%            |
|(carbonated and non-carbonated)                    |                |               |                |                    |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[40-50]%        |[40-50]%            |
|Non-cola-flavoured CSDs                            |UK              |[0-5]%         |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%            |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[5-10]%         |[5-10]%             |

                                       Source: Euromonitor data; Nielsen data; Notifying Party's estimates.

            Table 1 – Parties' market shares (by value) in the supply of branded NABs to the off-trade channels in the UK and Ireland

|Relevant market                                                     |Suntory        |Target Business |Combined            |
|Carbonated energy drinks                           |UK              |[0-5]%         |[30-40]%        |[30-40]%            |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[50-60]%        |[50-60]%            |
|Energy and sport drinks                            |UK              |[0-5]%         |[40-50]%        |[40-50]%            |
|(carbonated and non-carbonated)                    |                |               |                |                    |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[50-60]%        |[50-60]%            |
|Non-cola-flavoured CSDs                            |UK              |[0-5]%         |[10-20]%        |[10-20]%            |
|                                                   |Ireland         |[0-5]%         |[20-30]%        |[20-30]%            |

                                       Source: Euromonitor data; Nielsen data; Notifying Party's estimates.

   35) As can be seen from these tables, the increment brought by the transaction under any potential market definition is always small (below [0-
       5]%).

   36) Regarding carbonated energy drinks, in the UK the top competing brands are Red Bull ([20-30]%), Monster  ([5-10]%),  Relentless  ([5-10]%)
       and Boost ([0-5]%).[24] In Ireland, competing brands are Red Bull ([20-30]%), Mountain  Dew  Energy  ([0-5]%),  BPM  Energy  ([0-5]%)  and
       Monster ([0-5]%).[25]

   37) In a market including energy and sports drinks (both carbonated and non-carbonated), in the UK the top competing brands are Red Bull ([20-
       30]%), Powerade ([0-5]%), Monster ([0-5]%), Relentless ([0-5]%) and Boost ([0-5]%).[26] In Ireland, competing brands are  Red  Bull  ([10-
       20]%), Club ([10-20]%), Powerade ([5-10]%) and Mountain Dew Energy ([0-5]%).[27]

   38) In a wider market for non-cola-flavoured CSDs, in the UK the top competing brands are Red Bull ([10-20]%), Schweppes ([5-10]%), Fanta ([5-
       10]%), Irn-Bru ([5-10]%), Sprite ([0-5]%) and Dr Pepper ([0-5]%).[28] In Ireland, competing brands are 7-Up ([10-20]%),  Club  ([10-20]%),
       Red Bull ([5-10]%) and Fanta and TK (each [0-5]%).[29]

   39) The Notifying Party submits that the transaction does not raise competition concerns  given that,  irrespective  of  the  relevant  market
       definition, the increment is minimal and there are a number of strong competitors that can exert a competitive constraint on the Parties.

   40) The market investigation indicated that Lucozade Energy and Lucozade Sport drinks are must-stock brands for retailers,  while  Suntory'  V
       Energy drink does not present any specific advantage in potential markets for carbonated energy drinks or including both energy and sports
       drinks.[30] From a demand-side perspective, the market investigation confirmed that Suntory's V Energy  drink  and  the  Target  Business'
       Lucozade Energy and Sport drinks are not each other closest competitors.[31]

   41) In addition, regarding a potential market for non-cola-flavoured CSDs, the market investigation indicated that Ribena Sparkling is a must-
       stock brand for retailers while Suntory's Orangina is a small brand in the UK and does not present any specific advantage in the non-cola-
       flavoured CSD market.[32] From a demand-side perspective, the market investigation confirmed that Suntory's Orangina drink and the  Target
       Business' Ribena Sparkling drink are not each other closest competitors in the markets for non-cola-flavoured CSDs.[33]

   42) Furthermore, the respondents to the market investigation indicated that there have been new entries and expansions in the last three years
       regarding both energy and sports drinks.[34]  In addition, other brands are expected to enter the market for carbonated energy  drinks  in
       the next two years.[35]

   43) In light of the small market share increment, the presence of other strong competitors, the frequency of entry  and  expansions  into  the
       market and the absence of substantiated concerns voiced during the market investigation, it is concluded  that  the  proposed  transaction
       does not raise serious doubts as to its compatibility with the internal market with respect to the potential markets for the supply of (i)
       carbonated energy drinks, (ii) energy and sports drinks, or (iii) non-cola-flavoured CSDs to the off-trade channels in the UK and Ireland.

       CONCLUSION

   44) 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]   Turnover calculated in accordance with Article 5 of the Merger Regulation.

[3]   The Parties also overlap in the retail segment for branded NCSDs (such as still drinks and dilutes) but  this  overlap  does  not  lead  to
      affected markets.

[4]         Case COMP/M.6522 - Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier, Case COMP/M.2504 - Cadbury Schweppes/Pernod Ricard, Case COMP/M.2276  -  The  Coca-
      Cola Company/Nestle/JV.

[5]   Case IV/M.794 - Coca-Cola/Amalgamated Beverages GB. In subsequent decisions  the precise market definition was ultimately  left  open.  See
      for example Case IV/M.1065 - Nestle/San Pellegrino; Case COMP/M.2504 - Cadbury Schweppes/Pernod Ricard.

[6]   Case COMP/M.2504 - Cadbury Schweppes/Pernod Ricard.

[7]   However, in a few previous decisions the Commission has discussed whether energy and sports drinks form a separate market  from  other  CSD
      and NCSD drinks. Case COMP/M.6522 - Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier; Case COMP/M.5633 - PepsiCo/The PepsiCo Bottling Group; Case  COMP/M.2275
      - PepsiCo/Quaker.

[8]   Replies to questions 8 to 10 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council   Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers and competitors of 23 October 2013.

[9]   Replies to questions 12, 17, 19 and 25 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to customers and competitors of 23 October 2013.
[10]  Replies to questions 17 and 22 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers and competitors of 23 October 2013.

[11]  Replies to question 15 and 19 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[12]  Case No COMP/M.6242 - Lactalis/Parmalat.

[13]  Replies to questions 20, 21 and 22 of the Commission's request for information pursuant  to  Article  11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to customers of 23 October 2013.

[14]  Replies to questions 26, 27 and 28 of the Commission's request for information pursuant  to  Article  11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[15]  Case COMP/M.2276 - The Coca-Cola Company/Nestle/JV.

[16]  Case COMP/M.6924 - Refresco/Pride Foods.

[17]  Case COMP/M.6924 - Refresco/Pride Foods, Case COMP/M.6522 - Groupe Lactalis/Skanemejerier, Case COMP/M.5633 - PepsiCo/The PepsiCo  Bottling
      Group.

[18]  Replies to questions 27 and 32 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers and replies to questions and 34 and 37 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council
      Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[19]  As one competitor explains, "whilst market research would indicate that other EEA  countries  have  experienced  growth  in  the  sales  of
      taurine based energy drinks (such as Red Bull), the UK and Ireland has maintained a high volume of sales in the glucose based energy drinks
      segment. This segment of the market was created by the Lucozade brand in the 1980s." Reply to question 32.2 of the Commission's request for
      information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013. See also replies  to
      questions 32.1 to 32.3 and 35.1 to 35.3 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[20]  Reply to question 32.3 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004  addressed
      to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[21]  Reply to questions 25 and 30 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers of 23 October 2013.

[22]  The Target Business has minimal sales through the on-trade channel. In the UK on-trade sales represent approximately  [0-5]%  by  value  of
      the Target Business's total sales. In Ireland, only Lucozade Energy is sold for  the  on-trade  channel  through  wholesalers.  The  Target
      Business estimates these sales to represent up to [5-10]% by value of the total sales of Lucozade Energy.

[23]  As mentioned before, the increment brought by the transaction if private labels were included would be similar (below [0-5]%).

[24]  Market shares based on value.

[25]  Market shares based on value.

[26]  Market shares based on value.

[27]  Market shares based on value.

[28]  Market shares based on value.

[29]  Market shares based on value.

[30]  Replies to question 36 the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed  to
      customers and replies to question 40 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article  11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[31]  Replies to questions 37 and 43 the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers and replies to questions 41 and 47 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to  Article  11  of  Council
      Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[32]  Replies to question 36 the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed  to
      customers and replies to question 40 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article  11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No
      139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[33]  Replies to questions 37 and 43 the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  139/2004
      addressed to customers and replies to questions 41 and 47 of the Commission's request for information pursuant to  Article  11  of  Council
      Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

[34]  For example, regarding carbonated energy drinks: Mountain Dew's new version  called  Amp  Energy  (Pepsi  via  Britvic),  EQ8  Limited,  KX
      (Tesco), Little Big Shot, Monster new variants and flavours (e.g. Monster Absolute Zero), No Limit Energy drink, Pussy  Energy  drink,  Red
      Bull editions (cranberry, lime and blueberry), Relentless' new flavour Lemon Ice (Coca-Cola), Rockstar' new  variants  and  flavours  (e.g.
      Rockstar Super Sours), Supernatural, and  other  private  label  carbonated  energy  drinks.  As  regards  other  non-cola-flavoured  CSDs,
      respondents mentioned for example Laimon Fresh (Green Me). With respect to sports drinks: new versions and flavours of Emerge sport  drinks
      (mixed berry and tropical flavours), Gatorade (Pepsi via Britvic) and private label carbonated and non-carbonated energy and sport drinks.

[35]  Replies to questions 40.1, 41.1, 46.1 and 47.1 the Commission's request for information pursuant to Article 11 of Council  Regulation  (EC)
      No 139/2004 addressed to customers and replies to questions 44.1 and 45.1, 50.1 and  51.1  of  the  Commission's  request  for  information
      pursuant to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004  addressed to competitors of 23 October 2013.

-----------------------
 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