Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 06 JULY 2025

OpenAI's screenless future on pause amidst trade mark dispute

Swaab Attorneys
Explore more from Swaab Attorneys

The "io" vs "IYO" dispute offers a timely reminder that trade mark law exists to safeguard the reputation and consumer trust.

AustraliaIntellectual Property
James Skelton
James Skelton
Hugo Mahony
Hugo Mahony
Author LinkedIn connections

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

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in
For further information please contact:

Michael Byrnes, Partner
Phone: + 61 2 9233 5544
Email: [email protected]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Counterfeit Imports – Tougher Penalties At The Border

Australia strengthens its response to counterfeit goods importation through new legislation that creates strict liability offences and enables infringement notices at the border. The amendments aim to make counterfeit importing unprofitable by ensuring penalties and seized goods exceed potential profits. How will these changes impact intellectual property rights holders and importers operating in Australia?
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Pointon Partners
Pointon Partners
Article

Supporting ‘Human Artistry’: Wholly AI-Generated Recordings Disqualified From ARIA Charts In Australia

The Australian Recording Industry Association has amended its chart eligibility guidelines to exclude songs predominantly created by generative AI, sparking debate about the intersection of artificial intelligence and copyright law. This decision mirrors broader legal challenges facing courts and regulators worldwide as they grapple with determining when AI-generated or AI-assisted works deserve copyright protection and recognition.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
K&L Gates
K&L Gates
Article

How Can You Retain Intellectual Property When A Client Will Not Pay?

A service provider who has not assigned their intellectual property still owns it, regardless of what the invoice says. Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), the creator owns copyright by default, and ownership moves only by written assignment. Paying a designer or developer does not transfer ownership on its own. That default gives service providers real leverage where a client refuses to pay. Retention and suspension clauses turn the default into a contractual right to withhold deliverables.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
LegalVision
LegalVision
Article

Controlled Foreign Company rules - UK:

In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new In the Communications, Media and Technology Updater on 10 April, we commented on the proposals for the new Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.(CFC) rules and their impact on IP rights following the release of a discussion document on 26 January 2010.
AustraliaIntellectual Property
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia