Back­ground

In ear­ly May, Ope­nAI sur­prised the tech world with news of an esti­mat­ed $6.4 bil­lion part­ner­ship and acqui­si­tion involv­ing io”, a new ven­ture led by renowned design­er Sir Jony Ive. Ive is best known for cre­at­ing icon­ic Apple prod­ucts like the iPhone and Apple Watch. The col­lab­o­ra­tion aims to devel­op a ground­break­ing, screen­less per­son­al AI device described by Ope­nAI’s CEO, Sam Alt­man, as unob­tru­sive” and con­text-aware”. Accord­ing to Sam Alt­man, the goal isn’t to rein­vent the smart­phone, but to cre­ate an entire­ly new cat­e­go­ry of per­son­al technology.

Trade Mark Dispute

Short­ly after the announce­ment, on June 9, IYO Inc. filed a law­suit in Cal­i­for­nia against Ope­nAI and Ive, claim­ing trade mark infringe­ment and unfair com­pe­ti­tion. IYO is an audio tech start­up that is devel­op­ing a rev­o­lu­tion­ary screen­less device worn as cus­tom-fit­ted ear­buds and being mar­kets as the world’s first audio com­put­er”. IYO argues that io” is vir­tu­al­ly indis­tin­guish­able from iyO” in spo­ken con­ver­sa­tion and visu­al brand­ing, and there­fore cre­ates a like­li­hood of con­sumer con­fu­sion. Under U.S. trade mark law, par­tic­u­lar­ly the Lan­ham Act, a trade mark that is con­fus­ing­ly sim­i­lar” to a reg­is­tered trade mark can amount to infringe­ment, regard­less of dif­fer­ences in the actu­al goods or ser­vices. On 20 June, U.S Dis­trict Judge Tri­na L. Thompson’s issued a tem­po­rary restrain­ing order, com­pelling Ope­nAI to sus­pend all pro­mo­tion­al activ­i­ty relat­ed to io”. The order fol­lowed a pre­lim­i­nary hear­ing in which the court acknowl­edged while iyO could­n’t allege actu­al infringe­ment since Ope­nAi has­n’t yet released the prod­uct, she still found there was a suf­fi­cient like­li­hood of con­fu­sion to jus­ti­fy imme­di­ate relief. 

Ope­nAI has com­plied with the order and pub­lished a tem­po­rary notice on its site acknowl­edg­ing the com­plaint, though it stat­ed it dis­agrees” with iyO’s claims and is review­ing legal options. Addi­tion­al hear­ings are sched­uled, and Ope­nAI has stat­ed that its io” prod­uct is at least a year away” and will not be an in-ear device like the iyO One.

Aus­tralian Context

Australia’s Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (Act) pro­vides a sim­i­lar legal frame­work. Sec­tion 44 pro­hibits the unau­tho­rised use of a trade mark that is sub­stan­tial­ly iden­ti­cal with or decep­tive­ly sim­i­lar to an exist­ing reg­is­tered mark, espe­cial­ly where it relates to the same or close­ly relat­ed goods or ser­vices. Reme­dies under the Act include injunc­tions, dam­ages, and account of prof­its. In prac­tice, this means it is crit­i­cal that Aus­tralian busi­ness­es under­take detailed trade mark due dili­gence, care­ful­ly choose their spec­i­fi­ca­tion of goods and ser­vices, and mon­i­tor for poten­tial­ly con­flict­ing appli­ca­tions. Where a con­flict aris­es, swift legal action, includ­ing oppo­si­tion or inter­locu­to­ry relief, may be utilised to pro­tect the integri­ty of a brand.

Pro­tect­ing Your Brand

The io” vs IYO” dis­pute offers a time­ly reminder that trade mark law exists to safe­guard not just names, but the rep­u­ta­tion and con­sumer trust that brands car­ry. Even tech giants like Ope­nAI and design leg­ends like Ive are sub­ject to these rules. In a com­pet­i­tive mar­ket, a sin­gle let­ter can derail years of inno­va­tion and bil­lions of dol­lars in investment.

A well-exe­cut­ed trade mark strat­e­gy doesn’t just avoid lit­i­ga­tion, it builds endur­ing val­ue. By reg­is­ter­ing your name, logo, and dis­tinc­tive brand ele­ments, you lay the ground­work for recog­ni­tion, trust, and com­mer­cial lever­age. And if dis­putes arise, the Act gives brand own­ers the pow­er to respond swift­ly and decisively.

If you would like to repub­lish this arti­cle, it is gen­er­al­ly approved, but pri­or to doing so please con­tact the Mar­ket­ing team at marketing@​swaab.​com.​au. This arti­cle is not legal advice and the views and com­ments are of a gen­er­al nature only. This arti­cle is not to be relied upon in sub­sti­tu­tion for detailed legal advice.

Publications

Copy­right and Gen­er­a­tive AI: what Aus­tralia can learn from the Meta and Anthrop­ic Rulings

In 2025, two U.S. court deci­sions, Kadrey v. Meta and Bartz v. Anthrop­ic, have pro­vid­ed the first real judi­cial answers…

Fed­er­al Court Deci­sion Lim­its Effec­tive Use of Set-Off in Con­trac­tu­al Annu­al Salary Arrangements

The Deci­sionIn a recent Fed­er­al Court deci­sion*, Jus­tice Per­ram held that while con­trac­tu­al set-off claus­es in an annu­al salary arrange­ment can…

Pro­tect­ing your tomor­row, today: The impor­tance of an endur­ing pow­er of attorney

We often talk about the impor­tance of draft­ing your estate plan­ning doc­u­ments, includ­ing how draft­ing your will can ensure your…

In the News

Sarah Heuv­el pro­vides insight into get­ting Rent Roll Trans­ac­tions Com­pli­ance Compliant

Sarah Heuv­el in an inter­view with Matthew Cial­lel­la of MC Broking & Advi­so­ry, dis­cuss rent roll trans­ac­tions and the three key…

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with Evan Lucas on 2GB on 8 Sep­tem­ber 2025 to dis­cuss the recent Fed­er­al Court deci­sion relat­ing to salary arrange­ments, set-off claus­es and award compliance

Michael Byrnes appeared on Mon­ey News with Evan Lucas on 2GB on 8 Sep­tem­ber 2025 to dis­cuss the recent Fed­er­al Court…

Michael Byrnes has pub­lished an arti­cle titled Use of AI Crit­i­cised by FWC” in HR Leader on 2 Sep­tem­ber 2025.

Michael Byrnes has pub­lished an arti­cle titled ​“Use of AI Crit­i­cised by FWC” in HR Leader on 2 Sep­tem­ber 2025.To read the…

Sign up for our Newsletter

*Mandatory information