Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc
Intellectual Property Office · Jun 20, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The Appointed Person dismissed the appeal and made no award of costs for the appeal proceedings, determining that both the appellant and the respondent's counsel had acted unreasonably by submitting fabricated or unsupported legal authorities to the tribunal.
- Why the court cared
- The Appointed Person reasoned that both parties failed in their duty not to mislead the tribunal. The appellant admitted to using AI to generate fabricated citations. The respondent's counsel failed to justify his citations, which lacked any basis in the referenced judgments. Consequently, the Appointed Person concluded that neither party should recover costs for the appeal, as both had engaged in unreasonable conduct by presenting unreliable material.
- Why it matters now
- Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching. Outcome: Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred. Claimant used Chat GPT to assist in drafting his grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. The documents included fabricated citations and misrepresented case summaries. Claimant admitted to using Chat GPT and apologized for the errors.Compounding matters, the court suspected that the respondent had also used AI, since the cases cited in the Counsel's skeleton, though extant, did not support any of the propositions made - and Counsel was unable to explain how they got there.
Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The appellant admitted to drafting documents with the assistance of ChatGPT.
Appeal from a decision of the Registrar (O/299/25) regarding trade mark opposition and invalidation proceedings.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
11 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent asserted a previous edition of Kerly supported the propositions; the court could find no such support.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 1 of 3).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 2 of 3).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 3 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 1 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 2 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 3 of 3).
Show 3 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 1 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 2 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 3 of 3).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc?
- The Appointed Person dismissed the appeal and made no award of costs for the appeal proceedings, determining that both the appellant and the respondent's counsel had acted unreasonably by submitting fabricated or unsupported legal authorities to the tribunal.
- Why does Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc matter for legal AI risk?
- Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
- What does the public record establish about Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.