The Ninth Circuit has affirmed a trademark injunction in iyO, Inc. v. IO Products, Inc., a case that underscores how quickly branding conflicts can escalate in the technology and hardware sectors. The dispute centers on two companies developing next-generation computing devices: iyO, Inc., a startup developing an AI-centric device and the owner of the registered mark “IYO,” and IO Products, a hardware startup acquired by OpenAI earlier in 2025.

iyO sued IO Products after IO Products began promoting an upcoming device under the name “IO,” alleging that the marks are nearly indistinguishable and aimed at the same consumer base. Although IO Products had yet to release a commercial product, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing IO Products from using the “IO” mark in connection with the marketing or sale of products related to iyO’s offerings.  

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision and rejected IO Product’s argument that the case was premature because it had yet to sell any products. The Court explained that the case is ripe because IO Product’s alleged infringement is “sufficiently imminent.” The evidence showed that IO Products was already working on a prototype of its product that would compete with iyO’s product, intended to market such product using the mark at issue in the litigation, and released an announcement video acknowledging its plans to sell its product sometime in 2026.

The Court further applied the Sleekcraft likelihood-of-confusion factors and determined that “IYO” and “IO” are highly similar—phonetically identical and visually close—and that the parties’ products are sufficiently related to create a meaningful risk of consumer confusion. The Court also affirmed the District Court’s finding of irreparable harm, noting that early-stage tech companies can suffer lasting damage to brand identity and investor perception and funding long before products reach the market.

Although the Court granted an injunction, the injunction does not bar IO Products from using its name entirely. The injunction applies only to IO Products’ use of the “IO” name in connection with products that are “sufficiently similar” to iyO’s AI-based audio computer.  

Key TakeawaysThis decision reinforces several practical lessons for companies developing hardware and software:

• Similar-sounding marks in competing technology spaces are likely to draw early judicial scrutiny.
• Public product teasers, even without commercial sales, can trigger trademark liability.
• Courts remain receptive to early injunctions where brand dilution or market confusion could hinder a startup’s fundraising or launch strategy.
• Companies should conduct rigorous brand clearance long before unveiling prototypes or public product names.

This publication is published by the law firm of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. The publication is intended to present an overview of current legal trends; no article should be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters. Articles may be reprinted with permission and acknowledgment. ECJ is a registered service mark of Ervin Cohen & Jessup LLP. All rights reserved.