Analysis-Of-Cosmetic-Products.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Load more
Recommended publications
-
Reports of Cases
Report s of C ases OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOBEK delivered on 17 March 2016 1 Case C-592/14 European Federation for Cosmetic Ingredients v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England & Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court)(United Kingdom)) (Request for a preliminary ruling — Internal market — Regulation No 1223/2009 — Article 18(1)(b) — Cosmetic products — Cosmetic ingredients — Ban on the marketing of cosmetic ingredients having been tested on animals)) Table of contents I – Introduction ................................................................................... 2 II – Legal framework ............................................................................... 3 A – EU law .................................................................................. 3 B – National law ............................................................................. 4 C – WTO law ............................................................................... 4 III – Facts, procedure and questions referred ......................................................... 5 IV – Assessment .................................................................................... 6 A – Preliminary considerations ................................................................ 6 B – Analysis of Article 18(1)(b) ............................................................... 7 1. Introduction ........................................................................ -
TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (Cap
TRADE MARKS ORDINANCE (Cap. 559) OPPOSITION TO TRADE MARK APPLICATION NO.: 303148236 MARK: CLASS: 32 APPLICANT: CHU-SHIK-HOE-SA AMOREPACIFIC (AMOREPACIFIC CORPORATION) OPPONENT: CHINA RESOURCES SNOW BREWERY (LIAO NING) COMPANY LIMITED _____________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION Background 1. On 25 September 2014, Chu-shik-hoe-sa Amorepacific (Amorepacific Corporation) (“the Applicant”) filed an application (“the subject application”) under the Trade Marks Ordinance (Cap. 559) (“the Ordinance”) for the registration of the mark “ ” (“the subject mark”). 2. Registration is sought in respect of “Fruit juices; Powders for effervescing beverages; Soda water; Orange juice beverages; Juice powders for beverages; Smoothies; Preparations for making beverages (Fruit extracts); Preparations for making beverages (Ginseng extracts); Ginseng juices (beverages); Red ginseng juices (beverages); Aerated water; Mineral water; Vegetable juices (beverages); Non-alcoholic beverages for health and beauty” in class 32 (“the subject goods”). 3. Particulars of the subject application were published on 31 October 2014. China Resources Snow Brewery (Liao Ning) Company Limited (“the Opponent”) filed on 30 January 2015 a notice of opposition to the subject application 1 together with a statement of grounds of opposition (“Notice of Opposition”). A counter-statement (“Counter-statement”) was filed by the Applicant on 30 April 2015 in response to the Notice of Opposition filed. 4. As evidence in support of the opposition, on 23 October 2015 the Opponent filed under rule 18 of the Trade Marks Rules (Cap.559, sub. leg.)(“the Rules”) a statutory declaration made by Li Yuqiong of Unitalen Attorneys at Law, the trade mark agent of the Opponent in Liaoning China, together with exhibits (“Li’s 1st SD”). -
Situation in the Different Sectors
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Archive of European Integration COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Brussels, 18.11.2008 SEC(2008) 2854 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT accompanying the 25th ANNUAL REPORT ON MONITORING THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY LAW (2007) SITUATION IN THE DIFFERENT SECTORS {COM(2008) 777 final} {SEC(2008) 2855} EN EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY ............................................................................. 16 1.1 General introduction...................................................................................................16 1.2 Automotive Industry.................................................................................................. 17 1.2.1 Current position.......................................................................................................... 17 1.2.2 Changes underway..................................................................................................... 18 1.2.3 Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 18 1.3 Chemicals................................................................................................................... 19 1.3.1 Dangerous substances and preparations..................................................................... 19 1.3.2 Fertilizers and detergents ........................................................................................... 20 1.3.3 Drug precursors......................................................................................................... -
Interpretation and Implications of the European Commission Recommendation on the Definition of Nanomaterial
Interpretation and implications of the European Commission Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial RIVM Letter Report 601358001/2012 E.A.J. Bleeker et al. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment P.O. Box 1 | 3720 BA Bilthoven www.rivm.com Interpretation and implications of the European Commission Recommendation on the definition of nanomaterial RIVM Letter report 601358001/2012 E.A.J. Bleeker et al. RIVM Letter report 601358001 Colophon © RIVM 2012 Parts of this publication may be reproduced, provided acknowledgement is given to the 'National Institute for Public Health and the Environment', together with the title and year of publication. Eric A.J. Bleeker Flemming R. Cassee Robert E. Geertsma Wim H. de Jong Evelyn H. W. Heugens Marjorie Koers-Jacquemijns Dik van de Meent Agnes G. Oomen Jan Popma Anton G. Rietveld Susan W.P. Wijnhoven Contact: Eric A.J. Bleeker Expertise Centre for Substances [email protected] This investigation was commissioned by Interdepartmental Working Group on Risks of Nanotechnology (IWR) in the framework of Risks of Nanotechnology Knowledge and Information Centre (KIR nano). Page 2 of 43 RIVM Letter report 601358001 Abstract Interpretation and implications of the European Commission definition on nanomaterials In October 2011, the European Commission published the Recommendation on the Definition of Nanomaterial. RIVM considers this definition to be a good basis for further discussion that should focus on two aspects of the definition: the proposed size limits for nanoparticles (1 to 100 nanometres); and the requirement that at least 50 % of the number of particles should be in this size range. -
A Guide to What Is a Medicinal Product
A guide to what is a medicinal product MHRA Guidance Note 8 March 2020 1 A guide to what is a medicinal product © Crown Copyright 2020 MHRA 10 South Colonnade Canary Wharf, London E14 4PU Published by MHRA 2020 (Certain Appendices may have been updated at different times) Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: The Copyright Unit Her Majesty’s Stationery Office St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ This MHRA Guidance Note should not be taken as a complete or definitive statement of the law. It is not intended as a substitute for legal or other professional advice. The MHRA accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused, arising directly, or indirectly, in connection with reliance on the contents of this Guidance Note. 2 Contents Page Introduction 5 1. What are Borderline Products? 5 2. MHRA policy and practice 5 3. How does the MHRA determine as to whether the product is a 6 medicinal product 4. What is a medicinal product? 6 • Definition • Meaning of Disease 5. Advertising 7 • Regulations • Internet advertising 6. Deciding factors when determining the regulatory status of a product 8 7. Products that are not classified as medicines under the “functional” 10 limb of the definition of a medicinal product 8. Is my product a herbal medicinal product? 11 9. Is my product a homeopathic medicinal product? 11 10. What claims can I make for my product? 12 • Claims to treat or prevent disease • Claims to “maintain” health • Cosmetic claims • Food claims 11. Products judged to be non-medicinal 14 12. -
Governance by Committee: the Role of Committees in European Policy Making and Policy
Governance by Committee: The Role of Committees in European Policy Making and Policy Research Paper 00/GHA Return to Introduction STATE OF THE ART REPORT CONTRACT NUMBER: HPSE-CT-1999-00019 PROJECT NUMBER: SERD-1999-00128 TITLE: GOVERNANCE BY COMMITTEE, THE ROLE OF COMMITTEES IN EUROPEAN POLICY-MAKING AND POLICY IMPLEMENTATION MAASTRICHT, MAY 2000 Table of Contents 1. General Introduction ................................................................................................................ 4 Subproject 1: The Standing Committees in the European Parliament 2.1..................Introduction ............................................................................................................... 6 2.2..................The Evolution of the European Parliament: From Consultative ............................... 6 Assembly to Co-legislator 2.2.1...............The EP as a Legislative Actor after Maastricht......................................................... 7 2.2.2...............EP and Council on an Even Footing after Amsterdam.............................................. 8 2.2.2.1. ..........The Streamlining of the Co-decision Procedure........................................................ 9 2.3..................The Role of EP Committees in the Legislative Process ............................................ 10 2.3.1...............Membership in EP Committees.................................................................................12 2.3.2...............Powers and Competences of EP Committees........................................................... -
Status of Cosmetics Regulations in Korea
ICRL 2|2020 Reports 73 Status of Cosmetics Regulations in Korea Doris Peters and Jae-Seong Choi* I. The Cosmetic Market in South Korea products and raw materials are legislated and man- aged by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety South Korea ranks amongst the top ten cosmetics (“MFDS”). The new law was adopted to improve the markets in the world and represents about 2.8 per- competitiveness of the domestic cosmetic industry cent of the global market1. Korea is considered as and to keep pace with international regulatory global center of innovations in cosmetics – “K-Beau- trends. The Cosmetics Act has gone through various ty” is on the rise. South Korean products impress changes, such as subdividing related regulations, through their effectiveness, packaging and sensory adopting Cosmetics Good Manufacturing Practice appeal and by thus, inspire Western brands. Cos- (cGMP) standards for cosmetics and preparing certi- metics in South Korea are defined as products ap- fication standards for Natural and Organic Cosmet- plied or sprayed onto the human body in order to ics. clean, beautify, change, brighten, maintain or pro- The legislative text mainly outlines the legal oblig- mote the health of skin and hair. The South Korean ations specifically for importers of cosmetics to help Cosmetic market is valued about 10bn USD today non-Korean manufacturers exporting their products with an estimated CAGR of 4.95% during to South Korea. The obligations depend on the type 2017-20302. and category of the cosmetic product. Inordertocontributetoimprovingnationalhealth and developing the cosmetics industry, the South Ko- rean government issued the overarching regulation 1. -
The Implementation of the EU Consumer Protection Directives in Turkey
Penn State International Law Review Volume 27 Article 3 Number 3 Penn State International Law Review 5-1-2009 The mpleI mentation of the EU Consumer Protection Directives in Turkey Yesim M. Atamer Hans W. Micklitz Follow this and additional works at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Atamer, Yesim M. and Micklitz, Hans W. (2009) "The mpI lementation of the EU Consumer Protection Directives in Turkey," Penn State International Law Review: Vol. 27: No. 3, Article 3. Available at: http://elibrary.law.psu.edu/psilr/vol27/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn State Law eLibrary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Penn State International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Penn State Law eLibrary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Implementation of the EU Consumer Protection Directives in Turkey Ye im M. Atamer & Hans W. Micklitz I. OVERVIEW The first Turkish Consumer Protection Law ("CPL") was issued in 1995 by Parliament, triggered by the establishment of a Customs Union between Turkey and the European Union ("EU") in the same year, obliging Turkey to adapt its legislation specifically in the areas of consumer protection, anti-trust law and intellectual property law.' Nevertheless, shortly thereafter, reform was needed, due to the European Council's granting Turkey official status as an accession state in 1999. This act obliged Turkey to adopt the entire acquis communautaire.2 In the area of consumer protection law, the legislature attempted to comply by passing a 2003 revision, which both transformed directives issued in the interim as well as making important changes to the existing law.3 1. -
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1003/•2014
26.9.2014 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 282/1 II (Non-legislative acts) REGULATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1003/2014 of 18 September 2014 amending Annex V to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (1), and in particular Article 31(1) thereof, Whereas: (1) The mixture of Methylchloroisothiazolinone (and) Methylisothiazolinone with magnesium chloride and magne sium nitrate is currently allowed as a preservative in all cosmetic products at a maximum concentration of 0,0015 % of a mixture in the ratio 3:1 of Methylchloroisothiazolinone (and) Methylisothiazolinone respectively. (2) The Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) adopted an opinion on the safety of the mixture Methyl chloroisothiazolinone (and) Methylisothiazolinone on 8 December 2009 (2). (3) The SCCS concluded that the mixture of Methylchloroisothiazolinone (and) Methylisothiazolinone in a ratio of 3:1 does not pose a risk to the health of the consumer when used as a preservative up to a maximum authorised concentration of 0,0015 % in rinse-off cosmetic products, apart from its skin sensitising potential. The SCCS indicated that induction and elicitation would be less likely in a rinse-off product than when the same concentration is present in a leave-on product. (4) The issue of stabilizers for that mixture was addressed by the Scientific Committee on Cosmetic Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNPF), subsequently replaced by the Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP), pursuant to Commission Decision 2004/210/EC (3), subsequently replaced by the SCCS, pursuant to Commission Decision 2008/721/EC (4), in an opinion of 24-25 June 2003 (5). -
The Impact of Consumer Innovativeness, Attitude
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ritsumeikan Research Repository THE IMPACT OF CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS, ATTITUDE, AND SUBJECTIVE NORM ON COSMETIC BUYING BEHAVIOR: EVIDENCE FROM APU FEMALE STUDENTS. By SEO Bo Kyung March 2012 Thesis Presented to the Higher Degree Committee of Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Business Administration Acknowledgement Firstly, I would like to express huge gratitude to my supervisor, Professor. Kayhan Tajeddini for taking time out of his busy schedule to give kind advises, warm encouragements and valuable comments. Without his patience and motivation, enthusiasm for teaching, extensive knowledge in the research filed, and help over time and space constraints, I could have not complete this long journey successfully. He gave a lot of energy to my tough and somewhat lonely student life in Japan and made a joyful journey of writing as a reliable friend and as a senior of life. My sincere and deep gratitude extend to 2011 Fall Thesis Committee members Professor. Haidar Ali, Professor. Zhang Wei-Bin, and Professor. Li Yan for their core questions, comments and recommendations. I also wish to thank to my friends both in Japan and Korea. Their warm recommendations and helps were precious to improve my research process. My huge thanks also go to the survey respondents who spent their invaluable times for answering the questionnaire. My appreciation goes to classmates, seniors, and juniors who studied and completed the MBA program together. Studying with those outstanding students was one of great pleasures in APU life with building up my knowledge. -
EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Cosmetic Products (Text with EEA Relevance) (2013/674/EU
L 315/82 EN Official Journal of the European Union 26.11.2013 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 25 November 2013 on Guidelines on Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council on cosmetic products (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/674/EU) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, with the contribution of the relevant stakeholders, including representatives of small and medium-sized Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European enterprises. Union, (5) The guidelines should assist responsible persons in complying with their regulatory obligations. However, Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the they are not meant to replace the knowledge and European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November expertise of the qualified safety assessor, as required by 1 2009 on cosmetic products ( ), and in particular the third Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, who subparagraph of Article 10(1) thereof, should remain the only professional allowed to carry out the cosmetic product safety assessment as described Whereas: in Part B of Annex I. (6) The measures provided for in this Decision are in (1) It is essential that cosmetic products made available on accordance with the opinion of the Standing the Union market be safe for human health when used Committee on Cosmetic Products, under normal and reasonably foreseeable conditions of use. To that end, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 requires HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: that, in order to establish that a cosmetic product is safe under those conditions, cosmetic products undergo a Article 1 safety assessment. -
Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – an Economic Analysis
Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment – An Economic Analysis Reference: OJ 2007/S 180-219493 Final Report Client: European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade ECORYS Nederland BV Dr. Koen G. Berden Prof. Dr. Joseph Francois Mr. Martin Thelle Mr. Paul Wymenga Ms. Saara Tamminen Rotterdam, 11th of December 2009 This report was commissioned and financed by the Commission of the European Communities. The views expressed herein are those of the Consultant, and do not represent any official view of the Commission. ECORYS Nederland BV P.O. Box 4175 3006 AD Rotterdam Watermanweg 44 3067 GG Rotterdam The Netherlands T +31 (0)10 453 88 00 F +31 (0)10 453 07 68 E [email protected] W www.ecorys.com Registration no. 24316726 ECORYS Macro & Sector Policies T +31 (0)10 453 87 53 F +31 (0)10 452 36 60 ii Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment iii iv Non-Tariff Measures in EU-US Trade and Investment Table of contents List of abbreviations used vii Preface xi Summary xiii Main results xiv Sector-specific results xv Extended Summary of the Study xvii Main findings of the Study xvii Sector-specific findings of the Study xxi Aerospace xxiv Automotives xxv Chemicals, cosmetics & pharmaceuticals xxvi Electrical machinery (Electronics & Office Information & Communication Equipment) xxviii Food & beverages xxix Communication services xxx Financial services xxx Insurance services xxxi Transport services xxxii 100 percent container scanning xxxiii Public procurement xxxiv Intellectual