Name of Moot: 12th Amity National Moot Court Competition
Held on: 1st to 3rd March, 2013
Organised by: Amity Law School, Noida
Team from National Law University, Odisha comprising of Arbaaz Hussain, Kartik Pant and Surbhi Sharma reached the Semi-Final rounds fetching 4 marks for NLUO in the Legally India’s MPL.
This is what the trio had to say (interview by Rohan Mukherjee, Campus Journalist, Lawctopus)
Pretty neat achievement for you guys, tell me something about your experience.
Participating in a moot court competition is always a learning experience but it is always a bonus if you get to break through the semis.
This pat on the back after months of reading and typing is a huge sigh of relief. Reaching semi-finals was good but it would have been better if we would have proceeded further, obviously.
Tell me something about the theme of the problem.
This moot was basically on legal aspects related to Trademark and Code of Civil Procedure.
This was a very interesting problem related to two companies, one being a British company having its goodwill in England and several other countries who got registration over its mark in December 2008 and its Indian subsidiary entered the market in 2011 and got registration over the same mark in India in February 2012.
Another was an Indian company which started using the mark since 2009. Both the marks were similar having a ‘smilie showing thumbs up’ along with ‘manCO’ and ‘MANco’ written over it. The question here basically was that which company will have the right to use the mark.
At first glance at the problem it will appear that Plaintiff ( Indian subsidiary of British Co.) is the stronger side among the two as many of the landmark SC judgments were in their favur but after a careful study of the problem we realized that facts can be molded in the favor of defendants( The Indian Co.) also.
Sounds nice. How much would you rate this problem according your standards?
The overall rating to the problem according to us will be 4.5/5 as it was a completely balanced problem having an interesting match of facts and law.
So the rosy parts are covered. Were there any drawbacks?
The only problem which we faced during the moot was that presumption of facts was allowed which according to us was not fruitful as the problem had everything inside it.
Any advice for all the mooters out there?
Never judge a team before facing them with regards to their capability- do not underestimate them, and more importantly, never underestimate yourself!
To quote a cliched achiever’s advice- Don’t think about the results and do your best, if karma plays a role here, you will return shining, and drunk.