On December 5th, the tech-media 9to5Mac released today (5 December) an article reporting that OpenAI The project of co-operation with the former Apple Design Director, Johnny Ive, suffered a legal setback, and the AI hardware project was created in partnership to hit a reef on brand name。
1AI REFERS TO BOVEN'S INTRODUCTION THAT THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDED THIS WEDNESDAY TO UPHOLD THE INTERIM RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) PREVIOUSLY ISSUEDOpenAI continues to be banned from using the name “io” in marketing。
The court upheld the claim of the plaintiff, iyO, that the “io” which OpenAI was trying to use was highly similar to the brand name of iyO and, if allowed to use it, would cause irreparable harm to the smaller initial establishment. This means that OpenAI and Johnny Ive follow up on their AI hardware projectThe core brand name must be hidden。
The source of this legal dispute dates back to early 2025. Court documents disclose that Jason Rugolo, Chief Executive Officer of iyO, had volunteered to contact Sam Altman, Chief Executive Officer of OpenAI, to seek financing for his project “The interactive future of the human machine”。
Altman then rejected the offer and revealed that he was developing a “competent product”, and then Rugolo responded to the profound phrase “Ruh roh, want to cooperate?”。
However, when OpenAI subsequently announced its acquisition of the “io” company of Johnny Ive and its readiness to enter the market, iyO immediately filed a trademark infringement action against OpenAI for attempting to seize the market using similar names and products。
In its decision on appeal, the Court elaborated on three main grounds for maintaining the injunction:
- First, there's the possibility of confusionThe Court noted that “IO” and “iyo” were identical on pronunciation and that both parties were aiming at the sale of new types of computers with AI language interaction, with a high degree of relevance。
- Secondly,The Court placed particular emphasis on the risk of “reverse confusion”That is, OpenAI, who is worried about being well-funded, will rely on strong market penetration, counter-offensive, making consumers mistakenly think that the iyO that uses the brand earlier is the violator。
- Finally.The court confirmed that the radical distribution plan of OpenAI had jeopardized the financing efforts of iyOand may dilute their brand value。
In its defence, OpenAI had countered that its primary product was not iiyO ' s main attack headphones or wearable equipment. OpenAI also accused Rugolo of actively selling the company and demanding a $200 million purchase price, implying that the litigation was speculative。