Hilti Has Meaning

[Arabella Kochanski]

In addition to being bright and eye-catching, the logo of Hilti Corporation is also meaningful.
Meaning and historyThe history of the company started in 1941 when Martin and Eugen Hilti opened a mechanical workshop in Schaan, Liechtenstein. Today, Hilti Corporation is a multinational manufacturer of products for various industries, including construction, building maintenance, energy, and manufacturing industries. Their products are aimed primarily at the professional end-user.

What makes the design unique, apart from the color scheme? The answer is the custom type. What you perceive at first glance is that the letters are heavy and solid. They are also wider than average, which makes them look stocky. In a way, the heavy shape represents the reliability of the products made by Hilti.

Dear Mr. Mohammad,

Thanks for your question.
1) Check the attached file for compressive strength of Hilit's chemical anchoring solution.
2) t_fix, eff = t_fix-h_fs. When using Hilti dynamic set, the total fixture thickness is base plate thickness and thickness of dynamic set. So, in literal meaning, t_fix,eff is actually thickness of base plate. The table you are refering is t_fix minus 11 for M16 and so on.

Hope that will be answer to your questions.

Feel free to check out our Professional education training, click here to know more.

Regards
Usman

5. Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Product ties - Pressure on independent distributors - Refusal to honour the guarantee where the products sold have been used with consumables from other manufacturers

6. Competition - Dominant position - Abuse - Undertaking creating obstacles to competitors' activity on the market for products intended to be used with equipment of its own manufacture - Possible justification based on the dangerous nature or the inferior quality of competitors' products - None

1. Neither Article 19 of Regulation No 17 nor Article 2(4) of Regulation No 99/63, even when read together with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 99/63, can be construed as requiring the undertaking concerned to reply, in the course of the administrative procedure provided for by Community competition law, to the statement of objections sent to it by the Commission. Neither of those regulations, nor any general principle of Community law, obliges the undertakings concerned to do any more than supply the Commission with such information or documentation as it has requested under Article 11 of Regulation No 17. Moreover, such a duty would, at least in the absence of any legal basis, be difficult to reconcile with the principle of safeguarding the rights of the defence because it would create difficulties for an undertaking which, having failed for whatever reason to reply to a statement of objections, wished to bring an action before the Community courts.

2. In order to determine the relevant market for the purpose of applying Article 86 of the Treaty, an assessment must be made of the characteristics of the products in question by virtue of which those products are particularly apt to satisfy an inelastic need and are only to a limited extent interchangeable with other products.

3. The dominant position referred to in Article 86 of the Treaty is characterized by a position of economic strength enjoyed by an undertaking which enables it to prevent effective competition being maintained on the market by giving it the power to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, its customers and ultimately of consumers. The existence of a dominant position may derive from a combination of several factors which, taken separately, are not necessarily determinative. However, amongst those factors, the existence of very large market shares is highly important and very large shares must be considered in themselves, save in exceptional circumstances, as evidence of a dominant position. Such is the case with a market share of 70% and 80%.

4. It is an abuse of a dominant position for an undertaking needlessly to protract the proceedings for the grant to a competitor of a licence of right under a patent that it holds by making manifestly excessive demands with regard to the amount of the fee to which it is entitled.

5. It is an abuse of a dominant position for an undertaking to refuse to supply certain products separately, to put pressure on independent distributors to cause them to adopt its discriminatory practices and to refuse to honour the guarantee attaching to tools sold by it where they have been used with consumables produced by other manufacturers.

6. Since an undertaking in a dominant position may, where required to protect its rights, institute the procedures laid down in the various national laws concerning product liability and misleading advertising, it may not argue that the allegedly dangerous nature or inferior quality of its competitors' products intended to be used with a tool manufactured and sold by it justify abusive practices which seek to eliminate those products from the market in order to protect its commercial position.

7. The turnover referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 laying down the criteria for determining the amount of administrative fines that may be imposed on undertakings that have infringed the competition rules is the undertaking' s total turnover.

Hilti AG, whose registered office is at Schaan, Liechtenstein, represented by Oliver Axster, Rechtsanwalt, Duesseldorf, and by John Pheasant, Solicitor, of Lovell, White & Durrant, Brussels, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr Loesch, 8 Rue Zithe,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by Karen Banks, a member of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, assisted by Nicholas Forwood QC, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of R. Hayder, a national official seconded to the Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,

Bauco (UK) Ltd., whose registered office is at Chessington, Surrey, United Kingdom, represented by Clifford George Miller, Solicitor, of Simmons & Simmons, London, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger and Hoss, 15 Cte d' Eich,

Profix Distribution Ltd., whose registered office is at West Bromwich, United Kingdom, represented by Malcolm Titcomb, Solicitor, of Evershed Wells & Hind, Birmingham, and in the oral procedure by Paul Lasok, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Faltz et Associs, 6 Rue Heine,

1 By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 21 March 1988, Hilti AG sought the annulment of the Commission Decision of 22 December 1987 in which the Commission (a) found that the applicant held a dominant position within the EEC in the market for nail guns and for the nails and cartridge strips for those guns, and had abused that position within the meaning of Article 86 of the EEC Treaty, (b) fined Hilti ECU 6 000 000 and (c) ordered it to put an end to the abuses of which it was accused.

2 The applicant, Hilti, is the largest European producer of PAF nail guns, nails and cartridge strips ("PAF" meaning "powder-actuated fastening"). Hilti, whose registered office is in Liechtenstein, where it carries on its main manufacturing operations, also manufactures in the United Kingdom and other European countries.

3 Profix Distribution Ltd, (previously Eurofix, and referred to hereinafter as "Profix" or "Eurofix" according to the material stage in the proceedings) and Bauco (UK) Ltd, whose registered offices are in the United Kingdom, produce inter alia nails intended for use in the nail guns manufactured by the applicant. Profix and Bauco claim that the commercial practices pursued by the applicant during the material period were designed to exclude them from the market in nails compatible with Hilti tools.

4 By an application lodged on 7 October 1982 under Article 3 of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, the First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87), Eurofix complained to the Commission that Hilti, acting through its EEC subsidiaries, was pursuing a commercial strategy designed to exclude Eurofix from the market in nails compatible with Hilti products. In essence, Eurofix alleged that Hilti was refusing to supply independent dealers or distributors of Hilti products with cartridge strips without a corresponding quantity of Hilti nails. Eurofix further stated that in order to sell its own nails for Hilti nail guns it had tried to obtain supplies of cartridge strips itself, but that Hilti had induced its independent dealer in the Netherlands to cut off supplies of cartridge strips which Eurofix had previously obtained from that source; finally, Eurofix was also refused supplies of cartridge strips following a direct request to Hilti. Eurofix further stated that it had requested Hilti, unsuccessfully, to grant it a patent licence, and that although it had subsequently obtained a licence of right under the patent legislation in force in the United Kingdom its terms had had to be fixed by the Comptroller of Patents. In that connection Hilti had made it clear to the complainant that it considered that such a licence did not confer any entitlement under the copyright which it claimed to hold in the United Kingdom.

5 Bauco made a similar complaint to the Commission, alleging that Hilti had infringed Article 86, and requested interim measures. In its formal application dated 26 February 1985, Bauco maintained that its customers were unable to buy Hilti cartridge strips without Hilti nails, thus making it difficult for Bauco to sell its own nails. Hilti had refused to supply cartridge strips to Bauco, and Bauco' s attempt to buy cartridge strips from Hilti' s independent distributor in the Netherlands through third parties had been blocked. Lastly, Hilti had reduced its discounts on Hilti goods to Bauco' s customers because they bought Bauco nails. Furthermore, Hilti had refused to grant Bauco a licence to manufacture or import cartridge strips. When Bauco had manufactured or imported such strips Hilti had initiated injunction proceedings for copyright and patent infringement. As a result of that action Bauco was obliged to sign an agreement of 4 December 1984 whereby it undertook not to sell, import or manufacture cartridge strips of a design which reproduced drawings of which Hilti owned the copyright or which infringed patents owned by Hilti. Bauco claimed to have applied for a licence of right, but feared that because of Hilti' s alleged copyright such a licence would be of little value. In any event, the terms of the licence of right had subsequently to be fixed by the Comptroller of Patents.

c80f0f1006