IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK—9th Cir.: TRO against OpenAI and IO Products over ‘IO’ mark upheld in trademark dispute, (Dec 4, 2025)

By Ravindra Kumar Singh, B.L.

TRO upheld as it functioned as a preliminary injunction; the dispute was ripe despite no product launch, and the company, IYO, showed likely reverse confusion and irreparable harm.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal district court’s issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing IO Products, Inc., OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, LLC, Sam Altman, and Jonathan Ive from using the ‘IO’ mark in relation to artificial intelligence products similar to those marketed by plaintiff IYO, Inc. The appellate court held that the TRO was effectively a preliminary injunction and thus appealable, the case was ripe for adjudication despite the defendants not yet releasing a product, and that IYO demonstrated both a likelihood of consumer confusion and irreparable harm from IO’s planned use of the mark (IYO, Inc. v. IO Products, Inc., No. 25-4028 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2025)).

Background. The plaintiff/appellee, IYO, Inc., is a technology company that develops and markets a proprietary AI-based "audio computer." The defendants/appellants include IO Products, Inc., a newly formed technology company, and its backers OpenAI, Inc. and OpenAI, LLC. OpenAI is a leading AI research and development organization. Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) and renowned designer Jonathan Ive are directly involved in IO Products.

IYO, Inc. owns the registered trademark ‘IYO’ used in connection with its AI products. The defendants planned to use ‘IO’ as a brand for an upcoming device that had not yet been launched but was publicly announced in a promotional video. The announcement aimed to generate market interest in an innovative AI hardware device expected to be released in 2026.

IYO initiated proceedings in the Northern District of California, seeking to enjoin the defendants from using the ‘IO’ mark for related products. The district court issued a TRO, finding a likelihood of confusion and potential harm to IYO’s brand and fundraising efforts. The defendants appealed.

Jurisdiction and ripeness. The Ninth Circuit held that although styled as a TRO, the order functioned as a preliminary injunction because it was issued after an adversarial hearing and extended beyond the 14-day limit set in Rule 65(b), thus satisfying the standards set in E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 932 F.3d 742, 762–63 (9th Cir. 2018). Consequently, appellate jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The court also rejected the ripeness challenge, explaining that trademark claims do not require actual sales but may be based on imminent harm or infringing advertising. As in Bosley Med. Inst., Inc. v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2005), the use of a mark in advertising alone suffices. The court found a May 21, 2025, video launch sufficient to show imminent infringement, reinforcing that IYO had a "colorable claim" under the Lanham Act.

Likelihood of confusion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding of a likelihood of confusion, particularly under the doctrine of “reverse confusion.” Applying the AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979) factors, the court emphasized that the marks “IO” and “IYO” were nearly identical in sight and sound. It referenced Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1998), which found a “perfect similarity of sound” sufficient to support confusion. The court also found that both companies were marketing AI products with similar functionality, reinforcing the relatedness of goods as a key factor. Other Sleekcraft factors either favored IYO or were neutral. The court noted that IYO’s mark was conceptually strong, and IO’s mark was commercially strong due to wide media attention.

Irreparable harm. The court affirmed the district court’s finding of irreparable harm, applying the presumption under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), which arises upon a showing of likely success on the merits in infringement cases. Drawing on Adidas Am., Inc. v. Skechers USA, Inc., 890 F.3d 747, 756 (9th Cir. 2018), the court held that IYO had sufficiently demonstrated loss of brand control and damage to goodwill, citing declarations from its CEO and investors that linked the IO brand announcement to disruptions in IYO’s fundraising.

Scope of relief. Notably, the Ninth Circuit emphasized the narrow scope of the TRO, clarifying that it only barred use of the "IO" mark in connection with AI products similar to those sold by IYO. The court pointed to the district court's denial of a contempt motion during the appeal as evidence that not all uses of "IO" were prohibited.

The Case is No. 25-4028.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Kara M. Cormier (Glovsky and Popeo, PC) for IYO, Inc. Margret Mary Caruso (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for IO Products, Inc.

Companies: IYO, Inc.; IO Products, Inc.

MainStory: TopStory Trademark AINews TechnologyInternet GCNNews AlaskaNews ArizonaNews CaliforniaNews HawaiiNews IdahoNews MontanaNews NevadaNews OregonNews WashingtonNews