Leytcorp v Mimbim Enterprises
Trade Marks Office · Dec 22, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Trade Marks Office
- Record ID
- leytcorp-v-mimbim-enterprises-2025-12-22
- Observed outcome
- The delegate granted the extensions of time to the Removal Opponent and awarded costs against the Removal Applicant.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks identified that the Removal Applicant's representative submitted written materials containing AI-generated hallucinations, specifically fabricated case law and legal propositions. The delegate characterized these as unfortunate and confusing but did not impose specific sanctions beyond the standard award of costs following the Removal Opponent's success.
Fabricated: Case Law | Removal Applicant's written submissions referenced several non-existent case authorities and attendant non-existent propositions of law; delegate characterised these references as AI hallucinations arising from the representative's materials.
Trade mark delegates now flag AI hallucinations on the record; screen every authority and proposition before submission.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Administrative
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was heard by a delegate of the Registrar of Trade Marks on 22 September 2025 regarding requests for extensions of time to file notices of intention to oppose trade mark removal applications.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The delegate identified the references as AI hallucinations.
Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.