Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc
Intellectual Property Office · Jun 20, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Intellectual Property Office
- Record ID
- pro-health-solutions-ltd-v-prohealth-inc-2025-06-20
- Observed outcome
- Appeal dismissed; no costs awarded for the appeal due to both parties' unreasonable conduct in submitting unreliable legal authorities.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Other
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Appeal from a decision of the Registrar (O/299/25) regarding trade mark opposition and invalidation proceedings.
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 appellant admitted to drafting documents with the assistance of ChatGPT.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to ChatGPT output as to any other research input.