The Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition was established in 1990 by the Brand Names Education Foundation in honor of Saul Lefkowitz, a Chairman of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Now sponsored by the International Trademark Association, the Competition is an annual event consisting of Regional Competitions in Atlanta, Chicago, New York and San Francisco, and a Final National Competition in Washington, DC, USA.

The objective of the Competition is to introduce law students to important issues arising in United States trademark and unfair competition law. Law students who participate in the Competition have the opportunity to develop their brief writing and oral advocacy skills in a mock courtroom experience. 

1. TEAMS

The Competition is open to teams of students from accredited law schools throughout the United States. Teams may consist of two, three or four students from the same school. Each school may enter up to two teams. No team member may hold a law degree from a law school in the United States. Team members must be matriculated in a full-time or part-time Juris Doctor (J.D.) or equivalent program in the law school they represent. Proof of current registration in law school for each team member (Documentation) must be attached to each team's entry form. Each team also must have an active advisor from its law school faculty; the signature of the faculty advisor is required on the Entry Form. 

Each team desiring to participate must submit its Entry Form and Documentation, fully completed, via first class mail POSTMARKED no later than November 1, 2005. Early entry is suggested, particularly for teams that desire a sponsor. On the Entry Form, each team must specify the team member who will serve as the contact person for the team.

Upon receipt of its Entry Form and Documentation, each team will be assigned to one of four geographic regions and be given a team number, its brief assignment, a copy of the Problem and a copy of the Rules.

The four regions are defined as follows:

East U.S.		Midwest U.S.		South U.S.		West U.S.
Connecticut		Illinois		Alabama		Alaska
Delaware		Indiana		Arkansas		Arizona
Washington, DC		Iowa		Florida		California
Maine		Kansas		Georgia		Colorado
Maryland		Kentucky		Louisiana		Hawaii
Massachusetts		Michigan		Mississippi		Idaho
New Hampshire		Minnesota		North Carolina		Montana
New Jersey		Missouri		Oklahoma		Nevada
New York		Nebraska		South Carolina		New Mexico
Pennsylvania		North Dakota		Tennessee		Oregon
Rhode Island		Ohio		Texas		Utah
Vermont		South Dakota		West Virginia		Washington
Virginia		Wisconsin		Puerto Rico		Wyoming
				U.S. Virgin Islands

Each region shall contain a minimum of four teams and a maximum of twenty teams. Teams will be assigned; in the order their Entry Form and Documentation are received, to the geographic regions in which their law schools are located. Teams entering a region that has received 20 team entries and thus is "full" may be offered the option to compete in another region with fewer teams.

Any or all team members may participate in writing the team's brief. Two team members must argue in each oral argument. Any two team members can argue for the team in each of the arguments.

There shall be no replacement of team members after service of briefs except with the express written consent of the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition Committee (the "Committee"). All teams are advised to make adequate plans (for required filings, travel, etc.) anticipating the possibility of adverse weather conditions or other delays.

  Top


2. THE PROBLEM

The Problem will be made available at each law school. In addition, if requested, a copy of the Problem will be sent to each additional school team upon receipt of its Entry Form and Documentation.

The Problem prepared by the Committee will be presented in a Memorandum Opinion that will include the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the lower court. The Problem will focus on one or more issues arising under the general subject of United States trademark and unfair competition law.

The Problem may not be used for any purpose other than the official Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition without prior written permission from the International Trademark Association. 

Note: This Rule prohibits use of the Problem in intra-school competitions, particularly where the Competition is used to select the team/or teams representing the school in the Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition.



  Top


3. BRIEF

The brief shall be a written argument reflecting the issues to be decided by the Court.

Each team will be assigned the side of the argument it is to brief. Although each team will brief only one side, all teams will argue both sides (Appellant and Appellee) before the Court.

Each team shall submit to the Committee the original and three copies of its brief (total of four). The original and all copies shall be bound at the left margin or fastened with three staples along the left margin. All copies shall contain the same matter in all respects as the original, and may be reproduced in any manner that produces a clear, black image on white paper, except that carbon copies may not be submitted. The type size in all copies must be the same size as in the original. 

Each brief shall, without exception, be limited to 25 double-spaced 8 1/2 x 11 inch pages, with printed matter (excluding page numbers) not to exceed 6 1/2 x 9 inches. Either a proportionally spaced or monospaced font may be used. A proportionally spaced font must be 12-point or larger. A monospaced font may not contain more than 10 characters per inch.

This 25-page limitation shall include only the argument itself and the conclusion (i.e., the cover page, questions presented, table of contents, table of authorities, statement of the case, summary of the argument and appendices are not included in the 25-page limit). 

Except to the extent that the Rules herein are inconsistent, the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States shall govern the format of the briefs. There need not be, however, a formal statement of jurisdiction. All citations shall be complete and in the form prescribed by A Uniform System Of Citation (most recent edition). 

The team number assigned by the Committee shall be included on the cover of each brief in the lower right hand corner of each copy. NOTE: The name of the law school, the names of the team members and the geographical region SHALL NOT appear anywhere on the brief. Briefs shall not be signed, and no information (real or fictional) serving to identify a team or team member shall appear on or within the brief itself. 

Failure to conform to the provisions of this rule will result in reduction of a team's brief score in an amount deemed appropriate in the judgment of the Committee. 

Briefs SHALL NOT be exchanged between teams participating in the competition (including teams from the same school). Although teams brief only one side, all teams will argue both sides before the court and are expected to rely upon their own research and originality of thought in preparing for oral argument.

By submitting its brief for the Competition, all teams are agreement that all rights in the brief, including copyrights and other intellectual property rights, are assigned to the International Trademark Association. 

  Top


4. SERVICE OF BRIEF

Each team shall serve the original and three copies of its brief, by overnight mail, to be RECEIVED by the Association ON OR BEFORE 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Friday, January 13, 2006. The address is as follows: 

Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition
International Trademark Association
Attn: Lisa Sandick
Education and Academic Coordinator
655 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10017-5617 

BRIEFS RECEIVED AFTER 5:00 P.M. EASTERN STANDARD TIME (CLOSE OF BUSINESS) ON JANUARY 13, 2006, WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. Failure to file a timely brief will result in automatic disqualification from the competition. 

Briefs may not be revised or amended after they are served. No supplemental briefs will be accepted.

  Top


5. REGIONAL COMPETITION

All Regional oral arguments will be conducted on one day: Saturday, February 25, 2006. All teams shall be advised by the Committee of the location and side of their arguments by Tuesday, February 14, 2006. Each team will compete in two rounds of oral argument: arguing as Appellant in one round and Appellee in the other round.

Oral arguments in the Regional Competition will be held in the following cities: 

East Region: New York
Midwest Region: Chicago
South Region: Atlanta
West Region: San Francisco

Each team is allotted 20 minutes for oral argument. Co-counsel may divide this time between them as they wish. In advance of the argument, the courtroom bailiff must be notified how the time will be divided.

The teams are responsible for observing the 20-minute time limitation. The courtroom bailiffs, however, will assist with the use of time cards.

The courtroom bailiff will advise each arguing counsel when there are five minutes, three minutes and one minute remaining of his or her allotted time. Once counsel is informed by the courtroom bailiff that the time has expired, counsel must conclude the argument or receive the Court's permission to continue.

The Appellant may reserve up to five minutes for rebuttal by notifying the bailiff prior to commencement of the argument. Rebuttal time may be utilized by only one team member, and the time reserved must be subtracted from the 20-minute allotment for that team to present its case-in-chief. The Appellant may waive reserved rebuttal time at the conclusion of the Appellee's argument.

  Top


6. ADVANCEMENT TO THE NATIONAL FINALS 

The team with the highest total score in each region will advance to the National Finals. (See Scoring.) The winning team in each region will be announced at an awards ceremony after the final round of arguments. The Committee will reimburse the winners of the Regional Competition for their reasonable hotel and travel expenses for attending the National Finals, up to a maximum of $500 per team. The National Finals will be held in Washington, DC, on Saturday, March 18, 2006, and will consist of two equally weighted rounds of arguments. Each team will argue twice, once as Appellant and once as Appellee.

Each team will be notified by Friday, March 3, 2006, of the times and sides of their arguments at the National Finals. 

Each team is allotted 30 minutes for oral argument. Co-counsel may divide this time between them as they wish. In advance of the argument, the courtroom bailiff must be notified how the time will be divided.

The teams are responsible for observing the 30-minute time limitation. The courtroom bailiffs, however, will assist with the use of time cards.

The courtroom bailiff will advise each arguing counsel when there are five minutes, three minutes and one minute remaining of his or her allotted time. Once counsel is informed by the courtroom bailiff that the time has expired, counsel must conclude the argument or receive the Court's permission to continue.

Appellant may reserve up to five minutes for rebuttal by notifying the bailiff prior to commencement of the argument. Rebuttal time may be utilized by only one team member, and the time reserved must be subtracted from the 30-minute allotment for that team to present its case-in-chief. The Appellant may waive reserved rebuttal time at the conclusion of the Appellee's argument.

  Top


7. ORAL ARGUMENT

For the Regional Competition, the teams will be notified in writing, prior to the date of argument, of the check-in time for the arguments in their region (National Finalists Teams will be notified of the times and sides of arguments in accordance to Rule 6 above). At the time the teams report for the Regional Competition, they will be notified of their courtroom assignments and times of argument. If any team is late in arriving at the designated check-in time, the Committee reserves the right either to declare a default or to assess penalty points. Participants must be seated in their scheduled courtroom at the appointed time of argument.

At the commencement of each argument, the team members arguing the case shall introduce themselves by name to the Court. The name of the team's law school shall not be mentioned or otherwise disclosed at any time before, during or after the argument. Failure to comply with this rule may result in automatic disqualification of the team from the competition. 

Oralists should be prepared to address all issues. Oralists are not required to argue all issues but the failure to argue important issues may be considered by the judges. 

No discussion with the judges is permitted until their critique, which shall be conducted by the judges after the oral argument.

Team members, coaches, faculty advisors, or any other person affiliated with the team are permitted to attend only those arguments in which that team is participating. Other spectators are allowed to observe the argument only if no team raises an objection before the argument.

The recording or taping of any argument is expressly forbidden. Failure to comply with this rule will result in automatic disqualification from the competition.

The Committee will make all attempts to ensure the impartiality of all judges. Any team that recognizes an affiliation between its team or the opposing team and any sitting judge should raise an objection prior to the argument. Failure to object before the argument commences is a complete waiver of this right.

Demonstrative exhibits are permitted.

  Top


8. OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE

No team may receive any outside assistance in the writing of its brief (including assistance from faculty members, coaches, other students and practicing lawyers). This Rule shall not be construed to prevent the general discussion of the issues with faculty or others, or the general critique of argument by judges during the Regional Competition, provided that no such assistance is designed to influence the substance of the team's brief. Specifically:

1. No team is permitted to review briefs (or drafts of briefs) prepared by anyone else relating to the specific case being briefed and argued in this competition.

2. No team may have its brief (or drafts of briefs) critiqued by any faculty member or other person who is not a member of that team prior to submission of the final brief to the Committee.

3. Students may review briefs prepared for other cases or other competitions.

4. Practice arguments are permitted, as are critiques and evaluations of such practice arguments by faculty and others.

5. Although general discussions of trademark law, and other legal issues related to the case, with faculty and others are permitted, such discussions may not focus on the specific case being briefed and argued in this competition until after the deadline for submitting briefs has passed.

  Top


9. SCORING

Three judges will independently score each brief. A panel of three different judges will independently score each team's oral arguments. 

The judges' evaluations of the briefs and oral arguments should not be affected by their personal views of the merits of the case at bar. Copies of the judging criteria for the brief and oral argument are attached as Appendix I and II respectively.

In computing the total score for each team in both the Regional Competition and the National Finals, the brief score and the oral argument score will each count as 50 percent of the total score. In the event of a tie in total scores, the advancing or winning team shall be the team with the higher oral argument score. In the event the oral argument scores also are tied in the Regional Competition, the advancing or winning team shall be the team with the higher score in the second round of oral argument. In the event those scores also are tied in the Regional Competition, there will be a tie-breaker oral argument.

Regional awards will be announced at the conclusion of the regional oral argument rounds. An award for First Place Team will be given to the team with the highest total score resulting from brief and oral arguments combined in each of the four Regional Competitions. An award for Regional Best Brief will be given to the team receiving the highest brief score in each of the four regions. Also, in each of the four regions an award for Regional Best Oralist Team will be given to the team receiving the highest oral argument score (all rounds combined).

National awards will be announced at the conclusion of the National Finals. An award for Best Team will be given to the team with the highest total score resulting from its brief and oral argument scores in all rounds combined of the National Finals. An award for Second Place Team will be given to the team with the second highest total score resulting from its brief and oral argument scores in all rounds combined of the National Finals. An award for Best Brief will be given to the team receiving the highest score nationally for its brief. An award for Best Oralist Team will be given to the team receiving the highest oral argument score (all rounds combined) at the National Finals. In addition, awards will be given to the team receiving the second highest score nationally for its brief, and to the team receiving the second highest oral argument score (all rounds combined) at the National Finals. An award also will be given to the law school of the Best Team.

Regional Certificate Awards will be as follows: First Place Team (Highest combined brief plus oral score) Second Place Team (Second highest combined brief plus oral score) Third Place Team (Third highest combined brief plus oral score) Best Brief (Highest brief score in region) Best Oralist Team (Highest oral score in region)

National Cash Awards will be as follows:   Best Team: $1,500 Second Place Team: $500 Dolores K. Hanna Best Brief: $500 Second Place Brief: $250 Best Oralist Team: $500 Second Place Oralist Team: $250 Law School of Best Team: $500

Each team will be notified in writing of its ranking by region and overall among all of the teams after the Finals.

  Top


10. POWERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Other these specific Rules, the Committee shall have sole discretion to assess penalties or to disqualify teams for failure to abide by any of the foregoing Rules.

The Committee shall have sole discretion to make all necessary interpretations of these Rules. All requests for Rule interpretations must be made in writing, and must be submitted to:

Saul Lefkowitz Moot Court Competition
International Trademark Association
655 Third Avenue, 10th Floor
New York, New York 10017-5617 

At the Committee's discretion, the response to any inquiry may be sent to all participating teams. All decisions of the Committee regarding Rules interpretations are final.

The Committee shall have sole power to resolve any dispute that may arise during the Competition. All objections must be submitted to the Committee in writing, or be put on the record at the commencement of oral argument. If an objection arises during the course of an oral argument, the objection must be submitted to the Committee immediately following the round in which the objection arose. 

  Top


11. APPENDIX I

Judging Criteria for the Brief
Scoring is based on a 100-point rating scale

PART A: LEGAL ANALYSIS Maximum of 60 points TOTAL for the following:

Focus on relevant issues Originality and creativity Effective use of cases and other authorities Effectiveness in dealing with contrary arguments and authorities

PART B: WRITING QUALITY Maximum of 40 points TOTAL for the following:

Logical organization Clarity in expressing arguments Effectiveness of writing style Use of proper grammar and citation form

PART A AND PART B COMBINED NOT TO EXCEED 100 POINTS TOTAL.

The judges' evaluations of the briefs and arguments presented therein should not be affected by their personal views of the merits of the case at bar.

  Top


12. APPENDIX II

Judging Criteria for Oral Argument
Scoring is based on a 100-point rating scale

Coherence and clarity of argument Effectiveness in responding to judges' questions and ability to return effectively to argument after questions Effectiveness of delivery and ability to engage in a dialogue with the court Poise and demeanor Use of most powerful arguments Logical ordering of argument and effective use of time Distinction of unfavorable authority Mastery of facts of case being argued and the decision below Knowledge and understanding of relevant precedent

The judges' evaluation of the oral argument should not be affected by their personal views of the merits of the case at bar or any briefs the judges have seen. Scoring is to be based totally on the oral argument.

The judges are encouraged to engage the participants in a dialogue, as the evaluation of the abilities of the participants according to the above scale becomes much easier to the extent that the judges do so. The judges also are requested, after the arguments, to comment on the arguments and to provide critiques of the individual participants.




  Top