REAL ACTION in the COURT ROOM

(From left) Juris Mentis team, Verapat Pariyawong and Kullarat Phongsathaporn; The Doctrine team, Asit Pruengwet and Alean Kua-nui.

Team finalists, all from Chulalongkorn University, met face-to-face in a legal showdown in the final round of this year's Young Thai IP Law Ambassador's Moot Court Competition, which hosted 36 teams that submitted an essay on ``How IP Impacts My Life''.

After the first-round essay screening, eight teams from Chulalongkorn, Thammasat, Naresuan, and Ramkhamhaeng universities were selected to participate in the second-round moot court competition on November 17.

Over one week, eight two-person teams were reduced to two finalist teams, and the final arguments on November 24 resulted in the selection of the winning team, which received a trophy from the Supreme Court.

The team was also awarded a two-week, paid trip to the United Kingdom to learn more about intellectual property law and practice in April 2007.

After an hour of arguments in English, the three-judge panel declared the Juris Mentis team the winner.

The counsel for the plaintiff ``made good, convincing arguments by acquiring the law to support the facts,'' says a member of the court, Hon Chindawan Sangkanjanavanich. They ``used Thai cases to support [their] position, and for the rebuttal, [they] made their points very clear and persuasive to the court,'' she added.

The Juris Mentis team, as counsel for the plaintiff, started out strong with an opening statement by Verapat Pariyawong, followed by supporting arguments by his teammate Kullarat Phongsathaporn. The matter of dispute involved Manchester United Plc, the plaintiff, versus Man U Pub and Restaurant, the defendant.

The plaintiff accused the defendant of passing off, trademark infringement, and unfair competition in using the name Man U or Manchester United to possibly mislead the public into thinking that the establishment is connected to the British football club Manchester United.

To these allegations, the defendants _ The Doctrine team _ argued to convince the court otherwise. In the end, however, The Doctrine team failed to show the court why the court should dismiss the plaintiff's claim.

``The most important thing is [defence counsel] should have addressed the several points of the plaintiff's argument one-by-one, issue-by-issue, to make it clear why [they] think the court should dismiss the plaintiff's claim,'' said Judge Chindawan. ``Generally, I think both teams have tried hard today,'' she added.

The final round of the moot court competition was presided over by Supreme Court Justice Panyarat Wiriyavanich, and Judge Chindawan Sangkanjanavanich and Assoc Judge Snit Nitithamas, both of the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court.

Held for the second year, the moot court competition _ a mock trial before judges _ is supported by The British Council, in cooperation with the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court, Biotec, and UBC-True. It is part of the Young Thai IP Law Ambassador Award, which aims to raise awareness of intellectual property (IP) law and its importance and benefits to the country among Thailand's next generation of law practitioners.

``The thirty-minute presentation represents countless hours of research and oral preparation,'' says Kullarat of the Juris Mentis team, adding that preparation includes reviewing all relevant Thai and foreign statutes, and decisions by the Supreme Court of Thailand, plus getting legal advice from lawyers and law professors.

The team's strategy, says Verapat, is straightforward.

``Accuracy of legal knowledge comes first, and equally important is the ability to give sound reasoning and to persuade the judges,'' he elaborates. ``But to be honest, performance is also critical in a moot court competition. And lastly, good teamwork,'' he adds.

Unlike Kullarat, Verapat is not new to moot court competitions. In October, Veerapat received an Honourable Mention for Best Individual Oralist from The Willem C Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot Court in Vienna, Austria.

In the event, about 1,000 law students from 50 countries participated. In August, Verapat was awarded the best speaker of the tournament at the sixth national debate on biodiversity, in addition to clenching the first prize for his three-member team. Both competitions were argued in English.

Aware of Verapat's accolades, Asit Pruengwet of The Doctrine defence team, said he felt only slightly disappointed that his team failed to bag the first prize.

``I couldn't help but think that my experience could not match his,'' Asit says. ``But I'm glad the competition is now over because it's been quite stressful. Now that it's over, I feel happy that I was a part of it. At least I had an opportunity to prove to myself that I can do it,'' he adds.

``Having come all the way to the final round is a pleasant shock to me,'' says Asit's teammate, Alean Kua-nui.

``This is the first time for both of us,'' she adds, ``so in each round of competition, there was a bit of drama outside the courtroom because we had to learn to compromise and work as a team.''