Judge Bars OpenAI From Using io Brand Amid Trademark Dispute

Startup iyO filed a lawsuit against OpenAI for trademark infringement after it used the brand “io,” which iyO claims is a homophone for its name, in a May announcement of a team-up with former Apple designer Jony Ive. A judge granted iyO a temporary restraining order barring OpenAI from using the name after the startup claimed Ive, along with OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman had known about iyO since at least 2022.

Sam Altman this week brushed off a lawsuit going after “io,” OpenAI’s team-up with famed former Apple designer Jony Ive, but a judge’s recent decision could make the issue a bigger headache than previously imagined for the AI giant. The trademark infringement suit, filed earlier this month by a startup called iyO, claimed Altman, Ive, and OpenAI had known about the startup and its tech since at least 2022 and had conversations with the company about a possible investment as late as spring 2025. Still, OpenAI went ahead and used the homophone name “io” in a splashy May announcement.

iyO claimed it was harmed by OpenAI’s announcement of io, a startup cofounded by Ive that OpenAI purchased for about $6.5 billion. The lawsuit claimed OpenAI refused to stop using the io name even after iyO requested it do so, and as a result, investors got spooked about the name confusion and funding interest in the startup dried up. A judge last week granted iyO a temporary restraining order barring OpenAI from using its io brand at least until a preliminary injunction hearing in October. Following the order, the AI company removed any mention of io from its promotional materials and website. OpenAI won’t be able to use the io brand through the remainder of the trial, which is set to start in January 2028, if it fails to change the judge’s mind in October, and at least one trademark lawyer thinks the odds are against it.

Trademark and intellectual property attorney Josh Gerben said the temporary restraining order the judge granted to iyO is not easily obtained, and is typically reserved for extreme circumstances where harm is likely. Rather than fight the court’s decision at the hearing in October, and then at trial, it may be easier for OpenAI to rebrand, said Gerben. “Legally, IYO’s case appears to be strong, especially given the phonetic similarity between ‘IYO’ and ‘IO’ and the reported instances of actual confusion,” he told Fortune. “If the case were to go to trial and IYO could provide that its fundraising efforts went completely dry, along with other evidence showing that consumers were being confused by OpenAI’s use of ‘IO,’ it would likely win the case.”

Despite pulling its io branding, Altman was dismissive of the lawsuit, calling it “silly.” The OpenAI CEO took a shot at iyO in several posts on X, claiming its CEO Jason Rugulo had been “quite persistent in his efforts” to get OpenAI to either buy or invest in his company. “i wish jason and his team the best building great products. the world certainly needs more of that and less lawsuits,” Altman wrote in a follow-up post. A spokesperson for OpenAI did not immediately respond to Fortune’s request for comment. Still, iyO’s general counsel said in a statement to Fortune that iyO felt confident following the judge’s decision to issue the temporary restraining order last week. “We’re not surprised by Mr. Altman’s dismissive tone—but federal judges don’t issue restraining orders based on ‘silly’ claims. The court found that iyO is likely to succeed in showing infringement, and that’s what matters. We’ll continue to protect the company’s brand and rights—no matter how big the opponent.”

Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI, has responded to a lawsuit filed against him by a CEO who has been persistently seeking investment from OpenAI. Altman dismissed the lawsuit as "silly," claiming that the plaintiff is desperate and has been relentlessly pursuing investment opportunities from his company. The lawsuit, which alleges that Altman and OpenAI have engaged in unfair business practices, has been met with a strong rebuttal from Altman, who has stated that the claims are baseless and an attempt to distract from the plaintiff's own failures. Altman's response highlights the ongoing tensions between tech companies and those seeking investment, as well as the legal battles that can arise from such disputes. The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the tech industry and the way in which investment opportunities are pursued and secured.