Appellate Panel: Only One Letter Apart, Identical Pronunciation
The Ninth Circuit said the district court was correct to determine IYO showed a likelihood of consumer confusion, noting the companies’ marks “only differ by one letter and are pronounced identically.” The similarities in their AI-driven, computer-replacing product lines also weighed heavily in IYO’s favor.
The ruling arrives just weeks after oral arguments in which OpenAI sought to overturn the temporary restraining order. OpenAI’s attorneys insisted IYO had no evidence of irreparable harm and argued that speculation about a future “io” product — mentioned once by Altman in email correspondence — was insufficient grounds for emergency relief.
Panel Finds Evidence of Harm, Despite OpenAI’s Pushback
But on Wednesday, the panel said IYO had provided adequate proof of imminent harm, pointing to declarations from its CEO and investors suggesting the IO acquisition immediately disrupted fundraising efforts.
Crucially, the court emphasized that the TRO is narrow: it prohibits use of the “IO” mark only in the marketing or sale of products closely resembling IYO’s AI-focused “audio computer.” It does not ban all uses of the term “IO.”
“The TRO would not encompass using the ‘IO’ mark in connection with unrelated products,” the court concluded.
