OpenAI and Jony Ive’s ‘io’ brand pulled due to name dispute

Imagine waking up one morning, typing “OpenAI io” into a search bar, and finding… nothing. No blog post, no video, no tweets—just the usual OpenAI noise elsewhere. That’s exactly what happened late June 2025, when OpenAI quietly scrubbed all public mentions of “io,” the hardware startup co-founded by famed designer Jony Ive. Readers and industry watchers were left scratching their heads: Did the partnership collapse? Is OpenAI backtracking on its big hardware ambitions? It turns out the answer is more legal thriller than business pivot—a trademark lawsuit from a hearing-device startup temporarily pulled the curtains on the public-facing materials.

To understand why this disappearance felt so jarring, it helps to revisit how we got here. In May 2025, OpenAI announced it would acquire a hardware-focused startup dubbed io Products, Inc., founded just a year earlier in 2024 by Jony Ive alongside Scott Cannon, Evans Hankey, and Tang Tan. The premise: marry Ive’s legendary industrial design pedigree with OpenAI’s AI research muscle to craft next-generation AI-driven hardware—potentially devices that eschew screens, lean into voice interfaces, and aim to be less socially disruptive than smartphones.

Related /

This was no side project. Reports pegged the acquisition price around $6.5 billion, marking OpenAI’s boldest push into consumer hardware yet. The deal was framed as a merger of teams: the “io team, focused on developing products that inspire, empower and enable,” would integrate with OpenAI’s research and engineering groups in San Francisco. Observers speculated about everything from AR glasses to AI earbuds—products that combine advanced on-device AI with sleek, intuitive design.

Yet, barely weeks after the fanfare, a legal storm emerged. A hearing-device startup called iyO, itself spun out of Alphabet’s moonshot lab X, filed a trademark complaint alleging that the name “io” was confusingly similar to its own branding (“iyO”)—especially given both were venturing into audio- and AI-enabled devices. Reports indicate iyO’s flagship product, the iyO ONE, focuses on voice-controlled, bone-conduction wearables, raising the stakes: consumers might see “io” hardware and think it’s linked to iyO.

Faced with a court order—or at least a threat thereof—OpenAI took down the original announcement page and accompanying nine-minute video featuring Jony Ive and CEO Sam Altman. Social media posts echoing the news also vanished. This wasn’t a strategic rebrand or quiet retreat; OpenAI says it’s a temporary measure spurred by the trademark dispute.

Digging deeper, the lawsuit gained traction in a June 18 hearing in San Francisco, where a federal judge signaled openness to arguments that promotional materials might already cause consumer confusion—even before any io-branded hardware hit the shelves. Bloomberg Law coverage noted that IYO’s legal team argued their momentum stalled after OpenAI’s announcement, claiming “io” infringes on their registered rights. Meanwhile, OpenAI’s side contends that “io” is distinct and that the complaint lacks merit.

Trademark litigation often balances first-to-use versus first-to-file, the distinctiveness of marks, and the likelihood of confusion. Here, “io” is short and arguably generic in tech lingo (think “.io” domains), but IYO’s claim rests on phonetic similarity and overlapping product space. Legal observers note preliminary injunction considerations could hinge on whether consumers associate “io” hardware with iyO’s earlier work—and judges sometimes err on the side of caution by pausing branding until the dispute resolves.

OpenAI spokesperson Kayla Wood told The Verge: “This page is temporarily down due to a court order following a trademark complaint from iyO about our use of the name ‘io.’ We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options.” Simultaneously, Jony Ive’s camp, via a Bloomberg interview, labeled the lawsuit “utterly baseless” and vowed to fight vigorously. From both sides, the message is consistent: the underlying hardware deal remains on track, branding hiccup notwithstanding.

On the plaintiff side, iyO maintains that protecting its name—and guarding against market confusion—is essential, especially as both companies explore voice-centric hardware. Observers note that early in hardware development, even naming disputes can delay product roadmaps, marketing timelines, and supply chain partnerships. So while no physical device has launched, the legal friction risks slowing integration of teams and diverting resources to court battles.

Brand naming is often one of the earliest steps for startups, but many founders skip thorough trademark clearance. As Lexology recently explained, skipping clearance searches or assuming a domain name equals trademark freedom can lead to forced rebrands or costly litigation. Meanwhile, trademark registration—though sometimes delayed by founders—secures legal rights and investor confidence. Built In’s guide emphasizes that in tech, where names become shorthand for innovation, protecting a brand early is vital to avoid derailments later.

In this “io” saga, OpenAI and Ive likely did vetting, but the emergence of a lesser-known startup with overlapping product vision shows no vetting is foolproof. It’s a reminder: conduct global clearance searches, consider phonetic and visual similarities, and anticipate future product pivots that might encroach on another’s territory. For large companies, the stakes multiply: a naming dispute can overshadow strategic announcements and erode momentum.

For now, OpenAI is “reviewing its options.” That could mean litigating to keep “io” branding, negotiating a settlement or coexistence agreement with iyO, or even exploring an alternative name if the legal path proves too rocky or slow. A forced rebrand mid-development isn’t ideal, but some companies choose that route to maintain product timelines. Industry insiders suggest that OpenAI may prepare backup names or simply proceed with internal code names until the dust settles.

Trademark disputes come and go, but in high-stakes tech deals, they can feel like potholes on the highway to innovation. For OpenAI and Jony Ive, the core ambition—crafting AI-first hardware with world-class design—remains unchanged. The “io” name may temporarily vanish from the web, but the underlying teams and R&D likely press on behind closed doors. If the dispute resolves in their favor, expect a triumphant return of the brand; if not, a new name may emerge to carry the vision forward. Either way, the episode is a vivid case study in the intersection of design dreams, legal realities, and the relentless pace of AI advancement.