What is the educational level required for participation in this event?

The 5º CSD-ABPI Moot is designed for college-level students, providing an opportunity for those pursuing higher education to engage in international arbitration.

Where will the 5º CSD-ABPI Moot take place?

The event will be held in the city of Rio de Janeiro, BRA, offering a physical, in-person format for participants.

What is the format of the 5º CSD-ABPI Moot?

The 5º CSD-ABPI Moot is a physical event, taking place in Rio de Janeiro, BRA, indicating an in-person competition format.

5º CSD-ABPI Moot

Aug 15–16, 2026Rio de Janeiro, BrazilIn-person

Registration open

The 5º CSD-ABPI Moot is an international arbitration moot court competition designed for college students. Hosted in Rio de Janeiro, BRA, this event provides a platform for aspiring legal professionals to engage with complex arbitration scenarios in a simulated environment. Participants will hone their advocacy skills and deepen their understanding of international arbitration practices.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 1 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Brazil

As the host nation, BRA is actively promoting the development of international arbitration expertise within its legal community.

Role in topic

BRA serves as the host country for the 5º CSD-ABPI Moot, underscoring its commitment to fostering legal education and expertise in international arbitration. The event in Rio de Janeiro highlights BRA's growing role as a center for dispute resolution in South America.

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

International Commercial Arbitration

Arbitration emerged as the dominant mechanism for resolving cross-border commercial disputes over the twentieth century, as parties sought neutral forums outside national courts. The 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, now ratified by over 170 states, established the global framework allowing awards rendered in one jurisdiction to be enforced in another with limited grounds for refusal. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (1985, revised 2006) further harmonized national arbitration statutes, and institutions such as the ICC, LCIA, SIAC, and Brazil's CAM-CCBC and CBMA have developed specialized rules and rosters of arbitrators. The core debates today concern the legitimacy and scope of arbitration: the boundaries of arbitrability (particularly for IP, antitrust, and consumer matters), the duties of disclosure and impartiality of arbitrators, the use of third-party funding, and the tension between party autonomy and mandatory rules of national law. Investor-state arbitration under ICSID and bilateral investment treaties has drawn additional controversy, prompting reforms led by UNCITRAL Working Group III. In Brazil, the 1996 Arbitration Act (as amended in 2015) and a supportive Superior Court of Justice have entrenched arbitration as a preferred forum for complex commercial and IP-adjacent disputes.

Key players

Intellectual Property

Modern intellectual property law rests on a layered international architecture built since the late nineteenth century. The Paris Convention (1883) and the Berne Convention (1886) established baseline protections for industrial property and copyright, later administered by WIPO from 1967. The 1994 TRIPS Agreement, annexed to the WTO treaties, made minimum IP standards binding on virtually all trading nations and linked enforcement to the WTO dispute settlement system, transforming IP into a central pillar of global trade governance. Contemporary debate focuses on the balance between exclusive rights and access. Disputes over pharmaceutical patents and compulsory licensing—crystallized in the 2001 Doha Declaration and revived during the COVID-19 TRIPS waiver negotiations—pit innovator economies against developing states. Digital technologies have strained copyright through questions of platform liability, text-and-data mining, and generative AI training. Traditional knowledge and genetic resources protection culminated in the 2024 WIPO Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Brazil, through INPI and active participation in WIPO and the WTO, has been a leading voice on access to medicines, biodiversity protection, and the public-interest dimensions of IP.

Key players

Trademark Law and Brand Protection

Trademarks—signs distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of others—have been internationally protected since the Paris Convention of 1883, which introduced rules on priority and the protection of well-known marks. The Madrid System (1891 Agreement and 1989 Protocol) created a centralized international registration mechanism administered by WIPO, while the Nice Agreement (1957) harmonized the classification of goods and services. TRIPS (1994) entrenched minimum substantive standards, including protection for well-known marks under Article 16 and geographical indications under Articles 22-24. Current challenges include the proliferation of bad-faith filings, particularly in jurisdictions with first-to-file systems; cross-border enforcement against counterfeits moving through e-commerce platforms and free trade zones; the scope of protection for non-traditional marks (sound, color, position, and three-dimensional signs); and the use of trademarks in the metaverse and as NFTs. Brazil operates a first-to-file system under Law 9.279/1996, with INPI processing hundreds of thousands of applications annually, and Brazilian courts have developed a rich jurisprudence on famous marks, dilution, and coexistence agreements.

Key players

Trade Dress and Protection of Product Configuration

Trade dress refers to the total visual appearance of a product or its packaging—shape, color, texture, graphics, and overall image—when that appearance functions to identify source. The doctrine developed primarily in U.S. common law and was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992) and Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers (2000), which distinguished inherently distinctive packaging from product-design trade dress requiring proof of secondary meaning. The TrafFix decision (2001) sharpened the functionality bar that excludes utilitarian features from protection. In civil-law systems, comparable protection is achieved through a combination of three-dimensional trademarks, registered industrial designs, and unfair competition rules. In Brazil, trade dress ("conjunto-imagem") is not codified as such but is protected through Article 209 of Law 9.279/1996 on unfair competition, supplemented by design registrations and consumer protection norms. Brazilian courts, particularly the STJ, have built a body of case law sanctioning imitation of distinctive commercial presentation where it causes consumer confusion or parasitic association. Persistent doctrinal questions concern the line between protectable distinctiveness and unprotectable functionality, the evidentiary burden for secondary meaning, and overlapping protection across IP regimes.

Key players

Unfair Competition

Unfair competition law polices market conduct that, while not necessarily infringing a registered right, contravenes honest commercial practices. Article 10bis of the Paris Convention (added in 1900 and revised through 1967) obliges member states to assure effective protection against acts of unfair competition, defining the category to include acts causing confusion, false allegations discrediting competitors, and indications misleading the public. Civil-law jurisdictions such as Germany (UWG) and France (concurrence déloyale and parasitisme) have built elaborate doctrines, while common-law systems address similar conduct through passing off, misappropriation, and statutory consumer protection. Brazil regulates unfair competition through Articles 195 and 209 of Law 9.279/1996, criminalizing acts such as misleading advertising, trade secret violation, and parasitic use of a competitor's reputation, and providing civil remedies for damages and injunctions. Modern controversies center on digital practices: scraping and misappropriation of data, abusive use of keyword advertising and SEO, look-alike packaging, influencer deception, and the boundary between aggressive competition and parasitism. Trade secret protection has gained prominence following the EU Trade Secrets Directive (2016) and the U.S. Defend Trade Secrets Act (2016), influencing reforms across Latin America.

Key players

International Contract Law

Contract law underpins all cross-border commerce, but its harmonization remains partial. The 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) provides default substantive rules for international sales in over 95 contracting states. The UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (1994, updated through 2016) offer a non-binding restatement widely used by arbitrators and contract drafters. The Hague Principles on Choice of Law (2015) and the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention complement these instruments by addressing applicable law and jurisdiction. Brazil acceded to the CISG in 2014, marking a significant alignment with global sales-law standards, while its 2002 Civil Code governs domestic contracts with strong principles of good faith, social function of contract, and economic equilibrium. Current debates include the treatment of hardship and force majeure—sharpened by the pandemic and supply-chain disruptions—the enforceability of smart contracts and electronically formed agreements, ESG-related contractual obligations, and the interaction between mandatory consumer-protection rules and party autonomy. The proper allocation of risk in long-term contracts, and judicial revision versus strict pacta sunt servanda, remain especially contested in Latin American jurisdictions.

Key players