•  •  Dark Mode

Your Interests & Preferences

I am a...

law firm lawyer
in-house company lawyer
litigation lawyer
law student
aspiring student

Website Look & Feel

 •  •  Dark Mode
Blog Layout

Save preferences
An estimated 44-minute read
 Email  Facebook  Tweet  Linked-in


India's only International Trade Law Moot Court Competition is back!

From 3rd to 7th February 2016, 42 teams from 8 around the world shall be at GNLU's sprawling campus to participate in the 7th GNLU International Moot Court Competition.


GIMC's 2016 edition problem is based on trade in solar cells and their plain packaging. The comprehensive problem includes issues based on the GATT, Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Agreement on Trade Related Investment Measures, Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and the Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights. You can access the problem here.

This evening the event shall begin with a grand opening ceremony and welcome dinner. That shall be followed by the first chance for the teams to win a trophy at GIMC as their researchers take part in the Researchers Test at 7 pm today.  The next two days shall see the participants facing tough questions in the prelim rounds and the results of the prelims including the teams which qualify to the Quarter-Finals shall be announced on the evening 5th February. The Quarter-Finals and the Semi-Finals shall be held on 6th February while the event shall draw to a close with the Final Round and Valedictory ceremony that shall be conducted on Sunday, 7th February.

This live blog shall be giving you all the updates starting from 4pm today! STAY TUNED!.

You should also definitely follow us on Facebook and Twitter  for all the latest updates and tweet to us your comments with the hashtag #GIMC2016!


1645hrs: The registration process is now undr way! At the very front of the opening ceremony venue, the GIMC 2016 trophies can be seen shining in all their glory!



1650 hrs: As part of the warm welcome to GNLU, each participating team receives a kit with folders and T-shirts for every member of the team. However, in keeping with a tradition from the 7th edition, each team also gets cupcakes with a good luck note from the entire GIMC team.

   b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20160203-WA00041.jpg          b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG-20160203-WA00051.jpg


1700 hrs: The GNLU campus looks vibrant in its preparations for GIMC 2016!


 1730 hrs: The registration process is almost through. The participants look delighted as they eat their cupcakes!


1734 hrs: The participating teams are being briefed on the general rules for the Moot Court Competition by members of the Organizing Committee. This briefing entails information about the rounds, parameters for qualification and the researchers' test. 


1745 hrs: The participants are now being shown a short movie showcasing the key highlights of GIMC 2015! It details the journey from organization by the members, the experience of the moot itself and thoughts of various professors on the process of preparation and the successful outcome!


1800 hrs: The opening ceremony is now under way. On the dias, we have Dr. Mamta Biswal, Dean of Academic Affairs, GNLU and Mr. Girish R., GIMC Faculty Convener.


1802 hrs: Dr. Mamta Biswal, Dean, Academic Affairs GNLU is now addressing the participants of GIMC 2016. She congratulates the organizing committee for their efforts reaping results. She recounts the experience of the 1st edition of GIMC and marvels at the continuing growth of the moot court competition. She says that she appreciates GIMC as it provides impetus to young legal minds to develop an understanding of international Trade Law. 


1805 hrs: She looks at recent decisions of the WTO and highlights the need for research in light of the contemporary challenges in international Trade Law. She highlights the success of GNLU in moot court competitions and congratulates the faculty convener and student members in providing encouragement for the growth and expertise in mooting in GNLU.


1810 hrs: Mr Girish R, Faculty Convener, GIMC is now addressing the participants. He stresses on the efforts that have been undertaken in order to organize a moot court competition that is competitive and enhances skills of the students. He highlights the importance of time and the facilitation that shall be provided by the Organizing Committee members to keep the event running in a timely manner.



1815 hrs: He invites all the participants for the Gala dinner at the end of the moot court competition on Sunday, 7th February, 2016. He highlights the sponsors for GIMC 2016 and thanks them for their support- Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, Westlaw and Thomson Reuters, World Trade Institute, Manupatra, Trade Law Guide, Lex Witness and IIFT-CWS.


1820 hrs: He announces the awards for the competition as well and the prizes that shall accompany the titles of the winners. Further, he talks about an Acoustic Night being organized for the participants. He also highlights the upcoming 2nd edition of GMSIL, a moot on Securities and Investment Law organized by GNLU. 


1823 hrs: The Inauguration ceremony has now come to an end and the researchers' test is now commencing for the teams participating in the competition. 


1845 hrs: The researchers test is now underway. Started last year, this round tests the knowledge of the researchers and awards the highest scoring participant. Team GIMC wishes them all the best!b2ap3_thumbnail_8769891c-1310-4865-b51e-8dde595467fa.jpg

1850 hrs: A special dinner has been organized for the participants The preliminary rounds shall take place tomorrow and day after. We shall be bringing you live updates as well as results. So stay tuned!




1100 hrs: The preliminary rounds have just commenced. Each team gets the opportunity to argue from both sides, once today and once tomorrow. Here are some pictures from the morning session!

 b2ap3_thumbnail_AsWJ6BuWoha8aMJ8A2aVF-rhk6CC1mq7643JUxqDbmSU-1.jpg b2ap3_thumbnail_Ajfd545i5wAZB_GH1ng2TTozCFzjX8P7JLWuFQ0yGUnz-1.jpg


1300 hrs: The morning sessions of the preliminary rounds are almost at a close. The arguments that the teams are using will not be revealed until the semi-final rounds to prevent giving those with rounds tomorrow an unfair advantage. However, do stay tuned as we will be posting the results of the preliminary rounds tomorrow! 

b2ap3_thumbnail_Akxz8KQILAyDdERCaXvTTbZHlx6P8Wc3g7s3CB3GIgzU-1.jpg b2ap3_thumbnail_As_AzzaMK52YwgOX5jLJSy3CIvMC-EOl5rfKr8OuS-vv_20160204-092117_1.jpg


1530 hrs: The official photograph of the participants for GIMC 2016 has been clicked!





0940 hrs: The second half of the preliminary rounds has just begun! All the best to the participants from Team GIMC.



1130 hrs: Here are some images from the day so far. Stay tuned till the evening to see the results of the preliminary rounds!

b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_20160205_112957635.jpg b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_20160205_114103045.jpg  b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_20160205_113204109.jpg b2ap3_thumbnail_IMG_20160205_114015121_HDR.jpg


2030 hrs: So, the wait is over! The teams making it to the Quarter-Finals, in alphabetical order are...

Government Law College, Mumbai
National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad
National Law Institute University, Bhopal
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
National Law University Odisha, Cuttack 
Rizvi Law College, Mumbai
School of Excellence in Law,Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai
Symbiosis Law School, Pune

All the best for the Quarter-final rounds tomorrow!




1130 hrs: The quarter final rounds are now under way! The judges are testing the grasp the participants hold over the facts of the moot problem as well as the law.

                      b2ap3_thumbnail_IMAG0408_11.jpg    b2ap3_thumbnail_IMAG0403_11.jpg


1305 hrs: While we await the results of the quarter final rounds, we would like to inform you that we shall be bringing to you the live coverage of the semi final rounds today! So stay tuned to find out the teams that qualify to the semis.




1440 hrs: The teams qualifying to the Semi-final rounds, in alphabetical order, are...
National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad
National Law Institute University, Bhopal
National Law School of India University, Bangalore
School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Chennai

All the best for the Semi-final rounds. Get your A-Game on!


1442 hrs: The participants shall have an hour to prepare for the semi-final rounds. The rounds shall commence at 1530 hrs, prior to which there shall be a briefing for the judges. 


1534 hrs: The courtroom is ready. The first semi-final round shall commence soon. The round shall be adjudged by a panel of 3 judges. 



1542 hrs: The panelists are here and they look eager and fresh to commence the rounds!


1543 hrs: The first speaker for the Complainants has begun detailing the structure for his arguments. He outlines the time duration that she be taken by each speaker as well as the time reserved for the rebuttals.


1545 hrs: The first speaker for the Complainants is now addressing his first argument. He is quite confident in his approach to putting forth his submissions. 


1547 hrs: The first speaker is now addressing the 2 violations of TRIMS Agreement. He cites certain authorities in order to back his argument. He is interrupted by a Panelist for the first time during the semi-final rounds. 


1550 hrs: The volley of questions is now going back and forth. The speaker is not being able to make much headway with further arguments due to the number of questions. However, he does not lose his cool and tries to answer each question in as calm a manner as possible.


1552 hrs: The speaker is now addressing certain legal tests and he is stressing on the test of 'likeness' in order to further his submissions. Only one Panelist has been questioning the speaker up till now. The speaker reiterates his stance and proceeds with his argument. 


1555 hrs: Speaker 1 is now being questioned by the Panelists with regards to his 'likeness' argument. The speaker 1 is extremely composed and marshals facts in order to support his stance. 


1558 hrs: The speaker is now looking at the concept of 'less favourable treatment' and utilizing facts in order to support his stance for the same. With the same, he concludes his first argument and proceeds to the second one.


1602 hrs: The time allocated to the speaker has come to an end. He seeks an extension from the Panelists who grant him an extension of 5 minutes. The panel questions the necessity of going into certain issues in the speaker's argument to prove his case and they direct him to adress it in his rebuttals. They further ask him to proceed to argue upon the 'subsidies' issue.


1607 hrs: The speaker 1 is requested by the Panel to address an issue previously addressed by him and clarify upon the same. The speaker is composed as he explains the same once again.


1608 hrs: As the Speaker's time comes to an end, he is granted one more minute by the panel to sum up his arguments. The paucity of time has not led to any speeding up on part of the Speaker 1, who maintains a steady pace in his explanation. 


1609 hrs: The Speaker 1 is now being questioned on the 'benchmark issue' and the Panel is seeking clarification for the same as they don't seem extremely convinced by the argument. The Speaker reiterates his stance and details the argument in a step by step process. 


1612 hrs: The speaker is accorded another extension of 2 minutes in order to complete his arguments. He is answering a question of the Panelists by taking a two fold approach- factual and then by addressing it by the use of authorities. He comes to a close of his arguments. 


1614 hrs: Speaker 2 for the Complainants has commenced her arguments. She is questioned almost immediately as she begins addressing the issue of packaging requirements. The panel directs her to move straight away to the second point in her structure of arguments and she confidently handles the same. 


1618 hrs: Speaker 2 on behalf of the Complainants has 15 minutes left in order to lay out her arguments. The Panelist questions her regarding the description of the product, which she answers effectively. The Panel seems to be satisfied with her answer.  


1622 hrs: One of the Panelists is now making an analogy while posing a question to Speaker 2 of the Complainants. She puts forth her disagreement towards his analogy and proceeds to explain her stance on the same issue by highlighting the difference between the two. 


1624 hrs: There is a constant volley of questions back and forth from the Panelists to the Speaker. She, however, is taking the questions head on and displaying an effective sync of WTO basics and the facts of the moot problem in particular. 


1625 hrs: The Panelists question the Speaker 2 with regards to conclusive scientific data and evidence in relation to the public health issue. The Speaker is reiterating her stance on the same by marshaling facts to her advantage and by looking at the objective and justification for the restrictions in light of the same.


1631 hrs: The Speaker 2 is now making an analogy in order to explain her point. She is looking at the 'trademark' issue and whether the measures taken by the respondents were necessary or not. She has 2 minutes remaining in order to put forth her arguments. 


1633 hrs: The time keeper's hand has gone up and Speaker 2's time has come to an end. She is granted an extension of 5 minutes by the Panel. She proceeds to her next argument and lays out certain requirement and elaborates upon them. 


1638 hrs: The Complainant appears to have a uniform way of addressing all her arguments. Even in the last few minutes of the extra time granted to her, the breakup of each argument into sub-points, continues. She is still calm and composed and has not sped up despite the time constraints to complete her arguments. 


1640 hrs: With the end of the extra time, the Panelist requests the Complainant to wrap up her arguments. The Speaker 2 for the Complainants ends the round by requesting the Panel to grant the prayers of the Complainants.


1643 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents has now begun putting forth his submissions. He outlines the structure of his arguments as well as those of his co-delegate. He begins by addressing the aspect of 'likeness' of the products. 



1645 hrs: Speaker 1 is now pointing the Panelists to the Annexure in order to make his point and he is addressing successful transfer of technology. 


1647 hrs: The Panelist is questioning the Speaker on the basis of the arguments laid out by him. The questions are now going back and forth but the speaker sticks to his argument and tries to make his point in a calm and composed manner. 


1649 hrs: The Speaker is now looking at the question of health hazards with regards to the technology and is questioned on efficiency of the products and how applicable it is as a parameter. He is further questioned on the end use of the products. The time keeper holds up the sign signalling 10 minutes are remaining for the speaker 1 of the respondents. 


1653 hrs: The Panelists direct the Speaker 1 to address issues taken up by the Complainants in their pleadings and not go into the details of certain arguments. The Panellists seem to be driving the Speaker towards the complainant's grievances.


1654 hrs: The speaker is now making a case of exception and points at circumstantial aspects that need to be considered before reaching any conclusion.


1657 hrs: Speaker 1 has put forth an arguendo and the Panel seems to be receptive to the same.


1700 hrs: The Panel points out the WTO's jurisdictional limitation and stops the respondents from raising lucid issues. All eyes are set on the verbatim of the GATT articles.


1702 hrs: The Panel can be seen nitpicking the arguments they'd be interested in hearing.


1704 hrs: The Speaker has maintained his composure throughout the entire round. He is now citing authorities in order to support his stance and pointing various paragraphs out to the Panelists for their reference.


1706 hrs: The Panel is busy flipping through the written submission of the respondents. None of the submissions will be accepted without strict scrutiny. The speaker is granted an extension of 5 minutes in order to elaborate his current argument and detail another. He is asked not to go beyond the scope of the pertinent rules in order to make his point.


1708 hrs: Speaker 1 of the Respondents has come to a close with his arguments. Speaker 2 of the Respondents has begun outlining the structure of his arguments. He seems to be speaking in a slightly hurried manner in order to explain his arguments. 


1712 hrs: The Speaker 2 for the Respondents has begun addressing the first issue with regard to trademarks. Soon into his arguments, the Panel begins to throw questions at him. He is citing authorities in order to support his stance.


1714 hrs: The Speaker is elaborating on forums of dispute redressal that could be resorted to and effectively uses case laws to justify his concern.


1716 hrs: The Panel redirects the speaker's attention towards the justification of measures resorted to in relation to the Agreement between the parties. The Speaker reiterates his stance and tries to clarify his point in a composed manner.


1717 hrs: The Speaker is directed by the Panel to focus on the substance of his arguments due to the paucity of time. 


1720 hrs:  The speaker continues with his argument on the dispute resolution forum but is stopped midway and is redirected to the essential arguments the legitimacy of measures taken by the party.The Speaker goes on to use the Complainant's example cited to further his own argument and draw an alternate conclusion. 


1722 hrs: The Panel points out a flaw in the Speaker's conclusion. The speaker effectively rephrases his point to suit the position of law. He is further questioned by the Panelists as he proceeds with his arguments. He takes a sip of water before continuing in furthering his submissions. He is calm and composed.


1724 hrs: He is now using facts to his advantage in order to explain his argument. He is also making an analogy in order to further his point. He negates the alternative provided by the Complainants and explains his stance on the reason for disagreement. 


1726 hrs: The Speaker is vehemently arguing on the grave repercussions and misdirections of allowing the branding of products which was proposed by the complainants.


1727 hrs: He is questioned on the nature of restrictions and the application of those restrictions extends to which products. He clarifies by relying upon the annexure and also points out that there is a fallacy in the reading of the annexure by the Complainants according to them and elaborates his argument. 


1729 hrs: Despite the stop sign being shown signaling the end of his time to present his arguments, the Speaker continues answering the question put forth to him without a change in pace or demeanour. 


1730 hrs: The Panelist asks him a question and points out a contradiction in the argument of Speaker 2 of the Respondents. The speaker is confident as he calmly puts forth his argument to counter the question and further requests to elaborate upon another sub-issue. The Panel seems satisfied with his answer and allows him to proceed with his argument.


1734 hrs: The Complainants' side of the seat is continuously scribbling their notebooks and is discussing amongst themselves. We expect a heated round of rebuttals!


1735 hrs: What can be considered as justifiable and what not, is clearly the bone of contention for today's round. Speaker 2 summzarizes arguments and puts forth the Prayer from the side of the Respondents.


1737 hrs: The rebuttals from the Complainants' side have commenced. Speaker 1 for the Complainants is addressing the first 2 while his co-delegate, speaker 2 is addressing the other 2 rebuttals. His time comes to an end before he completes bth his rebuttals. He is granted a few seconds extra to raise his question.


1738 hrs: Speaker 2 for the Complainants is now speaking in a measured tone and seeking clarification on certain points from the Respondents. She requests an explanation regarding certain practices termed as discriminatory by her.


1741 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents is addressing the rebuttals made by the Complainants. He addresses their concerns in a step by step process by marshaling facts to his advantage and laying out the applicable law. 


1743 hrs: Speaker 2 for the Respondents is now addressing the remaining rebuttals. He is explaining the stance from their team's side and the justification for the restrictions imposed in a composed manner. He is addressing the question relating to plain packaging and the prima facie contradiction alleged by the Complainants that arises in relation to the same and how the respondents counter the same.


1746 hrs: The Speaker 2 concludes by stating the lack of a discrimination in the actions of the respondents. The round comes to a close and the teams are requested to step aside to allow the judges to confer amongst themselves. 



1758 hrs: The first Semi- final round was between National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad and National Law School of India University, Bangalore. The second round of the Semi-finals is about to commence post the feedback session by the Panelists. The esteemed panelists are-

Ms. Tashi Kaul
Ms. Anuradha RV
Mr. Mukundan Chakrapani

1814 hrs: Round 2 of the Semi-final rounds has now commenced. The second round is between National Law Institute University, Bhopal and School of Excellence in Law, Tamil Nadu Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Chennai.


1815 hrs: Speaker 1 of the Complainants has now commenced by putting forth the structure of her arguments. The Panel asks her to move directly to the arguments as they are well aware of the facts. The speaker seeks permission to deal with the merits of the case.


1817 hrs: Speaker 1 is dealing with jurisdiction of the WTO and she is citing authorities in order to back her case. She is granted permission to proceed to her next issue. She seeks guidance from them with regards to any preference they might have in relation to the issues and they ask her to proceed with the argument under Article II(i).


1820 hrs: The Panel is putting forth similar questions as put forth to the previous Complainants. The Speaker has moved on to her next issue and is addressing 'likeness'. She lays down the requirements to prove the legal test. She is questioned by Mr. Chakrapani regarding the same which she effectiely answers and proceeds with her arguments. 


1825 hrs: The Speaker 1 for the Complainants is now looking at the next requirement of 'less favourable treatment.' She cites authorities in order to further her case. She also looks at the requirement for the display of health warnings for one product and not the other. 


1830 hrs: Upon questioning by esteemed Panelist Ms. Anuradha RV, the speaker guides the Panel to a particular authority in their written submission which invokes further questions from the Panel. She answers the questions effectively and moves on to elucidate her next issue.


1832 hrs: The speaker proceeds to her last sub-issue. She brings up the issue of conferring protection to a domestic product and the violation in relation to the same. With this, she rests her case and Speaker 2 for the Complainants begins putting forth her arguments.


1835 hrs: Speaker 1 has completed the arguments in a timely fashion. Speaker 2 has detailed the structure for her arguments and is now putting forth her argument after having satisfied that the condition precedent for the argument has been met.


1837 hrs: Ms. Anuradha RV is questioning the Speaker 2 of the Complainants with regards to undue benefit. The speaker is composed as she marshals facts to prove her point. She is further questioned with regards to the market and the Speaker draws a comparison with Canada while also marking a difference with the present circumstance with regards to the benchmark analysis and explains why the same shall not be applicable as such.  


1839 hrs: She is further questioned on the benchmark analysis. Speaker 2 answers the question effectively and is asked to proceed with her subsidies issue and determine whether it is a prohibited subsidy.


1843 hrs: Speaker 2 further proceeds with arguments under the TRIPS Agreement. She is questioned by the Panelist on the right to use and the right to exclude. She effectively answers the question and is attentive to the further question arising with regards to the same point. 


1850 hrs: The Speaker 2 is now addressing the public health argument.She is questioned by the Panelists regarding the requirements laid out by her. The Speaker 2 marshals the facts to her advantage to explain her stance.  


1853 hrs: The speaker 2 is granted an extension of 2 minutes and she is dealing with her TBT Agreement argument. She lays out the requirements that need to be complied with and deals with each in a step by step manner by citing authorities to back her case.


1855 hrs: The Speaker seeks a further extension and states that she shall wrap up her arguments in 2 minutes. She is now addressing the intent of the respondents and the concept of good faith as a requirement. She draws attention of the panel to the sequence of the events in order to further her point. 


1858 hrs: The Speaker 2 for the Complainants is now wrapping up her arguments by looking at the effectiveness of the plain packaging directive. She is told that her Prayer is on record and is to be considered as read.


1900 hrs: The Speaker 1 for the Respondents has begun putting forth her submissions. She outlines her arguments in a point-wise manner. She has commenced with her first argument and is looking at undue benefit and the benchmark. 


1902 hrs: The Speaker for the Respondents is questioned by Ms. Anuradha RV. The speaker struggles to answer the question but is making an effort. A member of the audience can be heard whispering that the speaker sounds very rehearsed. 


1907 hrs: The Speaker is explaining the concept of commercial consideration and is citing certain authorities in order to back her argument. She is also marshaling facts in order to further the point made by her. The Complainant team is writing furiously in their notepads and it appears that they have a lot to question of the Respondents.


1909 hrs: She has now proceeded to explain her argument on 'likeness' by negating that the 2 products in question are not like. She uses the same authority as made use of by the Complainants and draws a difference in the circumstances in the present scenario. 


1912 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents is facing an onslaght of questions from the Panel and she is struggling to gather all her thoughts and respond to the same. However, she is composed through the entire process and is attempting to answer in a step by step manner. 


1915 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents is now looking at clean air as a legitimate object. She is asked by the Panel to move directly to the substance of her argument for the same. As she concludes, she is given another extension to answer the multiple questions put to her by the Panel. 


1920 hrs: The Speaker concludes after explaining her stance on self reliance and the requirement for the same. Speaker 2 for the Respondents has now commenced her arguments by outlining the structure. She is immediately interrupted by Ms. Anuradha RV who brings up the Complainant's contention and asks the respondent to counter the same. 


1923 hrs: The Panelists are asking the Speaker multiple questions and she is unable to make headway with the structure of arguments as laid out by her. However, the speaker maintains her composure as she attempts to satisfy the queries of the judges. 


1925 hrs: As the Panel questions the respondent Speaker 2, the researcher for her team passes her a note to assist her in her answer. She puts forth her public health objective argument. As she completes the same, she further proceeds to her trademark argument. 


1927 hrs: The Speaker 2 of the respondents is now looking at plain packaging. The Panel asks her to justify the imposition of the plain packaging norms. 


1932 hrs: The Speaker 2 states by drawing a comparison with other similar factual circumstances of public health as a justification for the imposition of the plain packaging norms. 


1935 hrs: The panel questions the use of the term 'gradual' by citing certain facts, apart from questioning the existence of a fiscal deficit as stated by Speaker 2 of the Respondents. She is addressing the questions in a composed manner.


1938 hrs: The 2 minute sign has gone up signalling that the Speaker's time has almost come to a close. She is looking at the concept of legitimate objective. The delegate is looking at the extent of the trade restriction that is permissible. 


1941 hrs: The Speaker 2 for the Respondents has now come to a close with her arguments. The rebuttals from the Complainants' side have now commenced. 


1943 hrs: As the rebuttals come to an end, the respondents are writing down the points being raised for them to reply to. Speaker 1 of the Respondents is replying to the rebuttals raised in a calm and composed manner. The Round 2 of the Semi finals has come to an end and the judges are now conferring among themselves.

 This ends our coverage for the semi-final rounds. Stay tuned for the results and coverage for the Final rounds tomorrow! Keep checking our Twitter page for further updates!


2015 hrs: A presentation was made by the World Trade Institute. the WTI has been sponsors for GIMC for several years. The presentation highlighted the various programmes and the multidisciplinary approach taken by the institute. 




We congratulate the winners of the Semi-final rounds and wish them all the the best for the final rounds tomorrow. Stay tuned for the live coverage for the finals which shall take place in the afternoon tomorrow. Good night!



1245 hrs: The GIMC winners till date have been-

2009- NLU Jodhpur
2010- George Washington University
2011- George Washington University
2012- NLSIU, Bangalore
2013- NUS, Singapore
2014- NLSIU, Bangalore
2015- NLU Delhi

The team to take home the trophy for GIMC 2016 shall be creating history and bringing special glory to their college by taking home the trophy for the first time!


1352 hrs: The courtroom is ready for the final rounds! The rounds shall commence at 1400 hrs.


1353 hrs: Unlike the previous rounds, the participants shall be allocated 45 minutes each to put forth their submissions.


1400 hrs: The participants for the final round have arrived. Only the judges are awaited now for the rounds to commence!



1405 hrs: The Panelists judging this final round are-

Dr. Carlo Gamberale, Counsellor, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO
Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Founder and Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys
Prof. Michael Hahn, Director, World Trade Institute
Prof. (Dr.) V G Hegde, Professor of Law, Jawaharlal Nehru University


1418 hrs: While we wait for the final rounds to commence, check out our Twitter page for latest updates!


1425 hrs: Finals are now underway! We have National Law Institute University, Bhopal as Complainants an National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad acting as Respondents. 
First speaker for the Complainants is Alisha Mehra. 

A brief summary of the facts is-
There are 2 countries in question- Leviosa and Wingardium. The latter is a developing country and in order to meet its energy needs, it establishes a solar mission. Wingardium enters into an agreement with Leviosa as they are pioneers of crystalline silicon technology used for solar panels. The issues are with respect to how the solar mission prescribes a domestic content requirement and how the feed in tariff scheme, often used to encourage renewable energy sector, amounts to a subsidy. Further, since the imported technology posed certain health hazards Wingardium imposed plain packaging requirements which are alleged to be inconsistent with TRIPS.


1428 hrs: The first speaker for the Complainants has commenced. She has begun by laying out the structure of her arguments as well as the time division for the issues. 


1432 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Complainants has been allowed to proceed with her arguments uninterrupted till now. Speaker 1 begins her set of arguments by stressing on the violation of Article III of the GATT and the essentials of 'like products.' As she begins explaining the same, she is interrupted by the Panel and asked to clarify her point. 


1435 hrs: The Panel questions the Speaker on the strength of the argument on violation of Article III. The speaker seems to be evading the question by choosing to argue on violation under Article II, in case the Panel were not satisfied on Article III's violation. However, the Panel directs her to proceed with her argument under Article III itself. 


1436 hrs: The Speaker for the Complainants has been speaking in a calm and measured manner till now, making her arguments lucid and easy to understand. She is now addressing the issue of 'less favourable treatment' and domestic content requirement. 


1437 hrs: The well structured argument on the rights and duties of the product developer and the comparison drawn between domestic and imported products is going down well with the Panel. Effective use of authorities by the Speaker in order to support her cause.


1439 hrs: Panellist, Dr. Carlo questions the speaker on essentials of like products and the jurisprudence as expounded by the WTO's Appellate Body behind less favourable treatment to such like products. The Speaker can be seen having a difficult time citing any authorities on the same.


1442 hrs: The Panellist questions the Speaker on the differential use of technology between the parties. The speaker immediately retorts saying that no such differential use is required to be surveyed under GATT. 


1445 hrs: The speaker is now arguing that Subsidies being under Article I of the agreement must fall under 2 requirements. The speaker is now dealing with the first requirement of financial contribution by the Government which is argued as having occurred when the Government purchases the goods and obtains entitlement of the same.


1446 hrs: As the speaker proceeds with the third argument, she cites the practice in US and Canada and the subsidies on electricity provided by the government. The speaker also elaborates on the threshold requirement of obligations imposed under the GATT in which case only measures can be imposed by importing countries.


1448 hrs: The Panel is questioning the Speaker with respect to the application of Article VI of the GATT to the SCM Agreement. This is replied to with the argument that the SCM Agreement is strict and the exception under Article VI of the GATT may not be extended to it. 


1451 hrs: The Panellists are questioning the speaker on the basics of trade law terminologies and the definition and scope of market, specifically applicable to their position.


1453 hrs: The speaker is now arguing that the 'Feed In Tariff Scheme' is specific in nature. The Panel questions the delegate on an alternate scenario with a domestic content requirement and whether her argument would still stand. She puts forth that her argument shall remain the same.


1454 hrs: Speaker 2 for the Complainants has now begun putting forth her submissions. Speaker 2 is Abhilasha Malpani. She is speaking in a confident and composed manner. The delegate has begun by dealing with the packaging directive and is laying out the facts that are relevant in order to further her argument. 


1456  hrs: She is dealing with the concept of legitimate objective and negating public health as the legitimate objective in this scenario. She deals with the tests under Article XX and cites Korea-Beef case and US-Cloves case in order to support her argument. The Speaker points out the imbalance and lack of nexus between trade restrictions imposed by the Respondents and the lack of threat to internal trade.


1501 hrs: As the delegate puts forth certain less trade restrictive practices, she is questioned by the Panel on the need for the Complainants to put forth the measures that should be taken by the Respondents. 


1504 hrs: The Delegate, after answering questions on whether the rights relating to trademarks are positive or negative rights in nature,moves on to discuss Article 16. She states that Article 16 provides a positive right to use a trademark which leads to a violation in the present case.


1507 hrs: The 5 minutes sign has gone up signaling the time remaining with the Speaker. The Respondents seem to be intently listening and noting down points while the Complainants are speaking. 


1512 hrs: The panel questions her choice of going under Article 16,  stating that certain TRIPS measures are flexible for countries , as long as consistent to the overall agreement. As she counters the question and puts forth her submissions, her time comes to a close.


1513 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents has now begun putting forth his arguments. He is Ribhu Mukherjee and he is speaking in a confident manner, laying out his structure of arguments. He is interrupted almost immediately by the Panel and he marshals facts in order to prove his point.


1515 hrs: The Speaker is in no mood to proceed to the GATT reuirements. He is stressing on the Constitutional goals of their country and wishes to justify the restrictions and sanctions within the ambit of the law of land.


1516 hrs: The delegate is questioned by the Panel on procurement and upon his attempt to answer, he is interrupted once again and questioned on whether he has understood the question, upon which the same is rephrased and he puts forth his answer before proceeding to his next argument. 


1517 hrs: The rounds see and intense point with a debate following over the the imported products. The question being, whether the solar panels were "electricity itself" or a product falling under Article III 4.


1519 hrs: The Delegate is now questioned on the test of 'like products' which he counters by putting forth that the requirement is of competitive products. He examines the Ontario Feed In Tariff Scheme in order to support his stance. As he tries to proceed with his argument, he is interrupted once again by the Panel as there is a volley of questions and he attempts to explain that the procurement of electricity is in competition with the cells. 


1522 hrs: The Respondent vehemently argues on the import of electricity in essence by way of solar cells and hence the measure undertaken, falling outside the ambit of Article III. 


1524 hrs: Speaker 1 for the Respondents chooses to distinguish their situation from settled WTO case laws by arguing on the the level of development in their country via vis other countries. The panel asks the speaker to proceed, without expressing any opinion on the same.


1528 hrs: The panel poses a question withn respect to whether Wingardium is purchasing power at a higher rate that the market rate. The speaker responds with an outright no by saying that it is  a fixed rate, to which the panel reminds him that a fixed rate may be higher as well and these two are dissimilar traits and that they must be approached in a step by step manner.


1529 hrs: The delegate has now proceeded with his next argument and is looking into the 2 requirements needed for qualification as a subsidy and he details them as financial contribution and benefit accrued. As he explains how the latter is not met by way of benchmark analysis, he is interrupted by the Panel.  


1531 hrs: The delegate has run out of time! He is granted an extension of 2 minutes by the Panel in order to address their questions and sum up his argument. 


1533 hrs: The Speaker proceeds by rebutting the Complainant's argument on the benchmark forming the market for renewable energy and the lack of any benefits being conferred on the market participants. The speaker ends his part of the argument by submitting that there was no unjustifiable subsidy given to domestic market participants which would affect imports from the Complainants or violate any of the GATT obligations. With this, he comes to a close of his argument and speaker 2 for the Respondents, Sadhika Gulati, commences with putting forth her submissions. 


1534 hrs: The delegate is addressing the Panel in a paced out and even tone. She is making an analogy in order to further her argument with regards to plain packaging. She states that with regards to Tobacco, certain words or colours can induce consumers to believe that the product is less harmful in nature. 


1537 hrs: The delegate is being questioned on the definition of a trademark and she is stating that the justification for her action comes from placing the health of the public over the commercial interests of the complainants. 


1538 hrs: The second speaker is dealing with the point of plain packaging of harmful products and emphasises on misinformation and wrongful health indications by way of allowing certain packaging practices of commercial firms.


1540 hrs: The delegate is now addressing violations of the TBT. She submits that the threshold for scientific data has not been met by the WTO by their report, but there is a legitimate objective in imposing the restrictions as the findings are corroborated by the study of an independent NGO as well giving rise to their action. The Panel questions her regarding the same and states that the threshold is not met by the study of a local body. 


1542 hrs: The delegate is faced with a question from the Panel regarding the requirement of the plain packaging directive. He states that he agrees with the health warning as being informative, the directive merely has the effect of deprivation of the use of the trademark. The delegate counters the question by examining that 90% of the packaging being health warnings shall fulfill the objective of health warnings.


1547 hrs: The delegate now proceeds with her next argument under Article 16. She states that the interpretation of the provision should always be in the context of the entire statute and that the interpretation of 'likelihood of confusion' as taken by the Complainants is not permissible. The Panel wants her to elaborate upon the point as they deem it an interesting argument. 


1550 hrs: As she furthers her argument, she is questioned by the Panel on unauthorized users being legitimized by her action to manufacture and sell products in the market. As she attempts to answer the question placed before her by stating that the current regime provides no such impetus, the Panel in a lighter vein, advices the Complainants to make note of her argument. 


1554 hrs: As the time allocated to the delegate comes to a close, she is granted an extension of 2 minutes by the judges in order to elaborate upon her current argument. The speaker proceeds to the argument on unjustifiable encumbrance under Article XX of GATT. The speaker vehemently justifies the Republic's position by arguing that no trade mark violation would be caused under Article XX. 


1556 hrs: The Rebuttals have now commenced and Speaker 1 from the Complainants' side is putting forth their questions to the Respondents. She is questioned by the Panel on the burden upon the Complainants of defining a benchmark which has not been discharged by them. 


1601 hrs: Speaker 2 for the Complainants has now begun putting forth her rebuttals, 5 in number. By looking at the Annexure regarding the Directive, the Speaker states that a misrepresentation has been made by the Respondents to the Panel.


1604 hrs: The Speaker 1 for the Respondents has now begun replying to the questions raised by the Complainants. Several questions are asked of the Speaker before Speaker 2 of the Respondents takes over to continue with the rebuttal. She is dealing with Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement. She is dealing with the spirit of the trademark and states that it can never be read out of context. 


1415 hrs: The participants and the audience have left the court room for High Tea. There is a continuous chatter among the audience which indicates that the round was very engaging!


1650 hrs: Everyone is now gathering for the Valedictory Ceremony. The Ceremony begins with an address by Sagar Godbole and Anu Srivastava, members of the GIMC OC. The dignitaries for the function are-








Justice Mohit S. Shah, Retired Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court
Dr. Carlo Gamberale, Counsellor, Appellate Body Secretariat, WTO
Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India
Mr. V. Lakshmi Kumaran, Founder and Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys
Prof. Michael Hahn, Director, World Trade Institute
Prof. (Dr.) V G Hegde, Professor of Law, Jawaharlal Nehru University
Dr. Bimal N. Patel, Director, Gujarat National Law University.


1702 hrs: Justice Mohit S. Shah, the Chief Guest for today's function, is now addressing the gathering. He puts forth that studying in a Premier Law School like GNLU is a rare opportunity and the most should be made of it. He talks to the audience about a holistic learning process, beyond merely textbooks. 



1705 hrs: Justice Mohit S. Shah applauds moot court competitions as they help students develop legal and practical skills in his opinion. They help students decide a path of law they might want to adopt and allow an actual feel of the court. 


1707 hrs: He states that lawyers need to be able to think on their feet apart from the preparation and hard work put in. He draws on an experience of his from the Bombay High Court and engages the audience with anecdotes.


1712 hrs: He talks about his experience with the courts and the problems such as delays and expense. He discusses alternate dispute resolution methods such as arbitration and mediation and exhorts the professors in the audience and on the dias to promote the same. 


1714 hrs: Keeping it short, he congratulates all the participants and wishes them all the best! He stresses on the importance of mooting once more and encourages GNLU in its efforts.


1716 hrs: Ms. Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court is now addressing the gathering. She takes up from where Justice Mohit Shah left off and she discusses with the audience the importance of exploring possibilities and new avenues in the field of law. She states that in order to establish a strong foundation, it is necessary for a student to proceed from the District Courts to the High Court followed by several other avenues. 



1719 hrs: She praises the hard work of the participating teams and wishes them all the best in their endeavours!


1721 hrs: Prof. (Dr.) V G Hegde, Professor of Law, Jawaharlal Nehru University has now begun addressing the gathering. He also takes off from where Justice Mohit Shah left off and stresses on the importance of alternate dispute resolution methods and forums as well. 


1723 hrs: He says that moot court competitions have the capacity to teach a student how to prepare briefs and arguments as well as put them forth and acquire specialized knowledge in certain areas and more than that, the basics of a particular area of law just as much as 6 months of teaching as well. He also talks about the importance of interaction with colleagues from other parts of the country and learning from them. 


1725 hrs: He says that he enjoyed being a Panelist for the final rounds of GIMC 2016 and he stresses on the growing importance and dynamism of International Law and World Trade Law. He talks about the inevitability of studying international law in the globalized context of today. 


1728 hrs: He ends his speech by stating that all students of law should make the most of the opportunities presented to them. He congratulates the participants for their successes and applauds their efforts. He concludes finally by stating that he was impressed with the rounds and that they justified the problem with their arguments. 


1730 hrs: Mr. V. Lakshmikumaran, Founder and Managing Partner, Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys is now addressing the gathering. In a lighthearted manner, he expresses his knowledge of the anxiety of the participants in getting to know the results. He first states his opinion on how difficult the problem was and how the comprehension of the same with regards to the interplay of laws as well as the articulation of arguments impressed him!


1733 hrs: He says that the competition was extremely stiff and both the teams are applauded for a job well done! He says that the participants have the capability to learn a lot, as well as earn a lot and his comment invokes laughter from the audience. Whispers can be heard remarking on his honesty and candid approach with the audience!


1735 hrs: He discusses with the audience the joy of sharing from his personal experiences. He talks about sharing one's wealth with those who are more needy as that will bring a lot of satisfation to them as individuals. 


1736 hrs: He proceeds to discuss the internship programme at Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys and talks about the rigiorous and learning experience aimed at. He states that he is so appreciative of the finalists and their grasp over the law that he would want to offer them the opportunity of interning with LKS. With this, he congrtulates all teams and the finalists and ends his speech!


1738 hrs: Prof. Michael Hahn, Director, World Trade Institute is now sharing a few words with the audience. He begins by expressing his sincere thanks to all the individuals behind the success of GIMC 2016. He also expresses his appreciation for the hosts and talks about the hospitality for those who come from near and far alike. 


1740 hrs: He talks about giving back to the society and the happiness it can bring to individuals. He wishes the participants all the best and says that he hopes to see them in the future at his institute!


1742 hrs: Mr. Girish R., Faculty convener of GIMC is now revealing the results! This is the moment everyone has been waiting for. And the winner is...

National Law Institute University, Bhopal

Congratulations to the winners of the Competition!

The runners up for the event are National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad!


The other prizes as awarded are-

Best Speaker for the Finals: Sadhika Gulati, National Academy of Legal Studies and Research, Hyderabad

Best Speaker for the Preliminary Rounds: Michael Jones, George Washington University, USA

Best Memo: Symbiosis Law School, Noida

Best Researcher: Yojit PareekIndian Law Society's Law College, Pune


1752 hrs: Dr. Carlo Gamberale is now addressing the gathering! He is telling the audience of how he is impressed and how it appears as if the students are WTO Law experts. 


1757 hrs: He encourages the university in the organization of GIMC and expresses his admiration for the growth up to the 8th edition. 


1800 hrs: Ms. Muskan Sharma, the Student Convener, now takes the podium to a huge round of applause. She says that she is overwhelmed by the success of GIMC and would like to express her gratitude to the members of the faculty, the OC as well as the teams! A special thanks is expressed to the co-convener, Shweta Shriram for making GIMC 2016 possible! She wishes success for GIMC 2017.


1805 hrs: The gathering is now being addressed by Mr. Girish R, the faculty Convener of GIMC. He expresses his gratitude to the members of the OC and the Batch of 2011 in particular for heading the smooth organization of GIMC 2016. He invites all the participants for the Gala dinner tonight!


1816 hrs: The final vote of thanks is being given by Dr. Thomas Mathew, Registrar, GNLU. He applauds the success of the competition, expresses his gratitude to Dr. Bimal N. Patel, Director, GNLU for his support as well as the faculty members and the OC for their efforts. He also expresses gratitude to the sponsors for GIMC 2016 and thanks them for their support- Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan Attorneys, Westlaw and Thomson Reuters, World Trade Institute, Manupatra, Trade Law Guide, Lex Witness and IIFT-CWS. He hopes that the learning experience of the participants shall take them further in life and he thanks the problem drafters.

This is the GIMC PR team signing off! We hope you liked our coverage and please do leave a comment below!

See you at #GIMC 2017 in one year's time!

Till then keep checking our Twitter page for further updates!


Click to show 2 comments
at your own risk
By reading the comments you agree that they are the (often anonymous) personal views and opinions of readers, which may be biased and unreliable, and for which Legally India therefore has no liability. If you believe a comment is inappropriate, please click 'Report to LI' below the comment and we will review it as soon as practicable.