Inside the Battle Over the ‘io’ Trademark: What OpenAI and io Products Are Fighting For

The legal dispute surrounding the ‘io’ trademark has brought to light intriguing details about OpenAI’s ambitions and the competing startup io Products. Recent court filings reveal a complex story involving high-profile tech figures, design veterans, and a race to innovate in AI-driven hardware. This article dives deep into the emerging facts and explores the strategic moves behind the scenes.

The Legal Clash Between OpenAI and io Products: A Detailed Summary

Yesterday evening, TechCrunch unveiled new filings in the ongoing trademark lawsuit between OpenAI and io Products, shedding light on why the ‘io’ brand was removed from OpenAI’s website. The documents, signed by OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and former Apple executives now working at io Products—Evans Hankey, Tang Tan, and Marwan Rammah—offer a revealing look at both companies’ efforts and plans.

In 2022, io Products’ CEO Jason Rugolo attempted to recruit Evans Hankey, Apple’s then VP of Industrial Design, without disclosing much about his company except that it focused on augmented audio with voice input, avoiding any mention of AI. Hankey declined initially, citing her commitments at Apple.

Contrary to popular belief, Hankey did not immediately join Jony Ive’s LoveFrom design collective after leaving Apple. Instead, nearly a year passed before she took on a full-time role at io Products, during which time discussions about AI developments with Ive and his family intensified.

OpenAI’s defense centers on repeated unsolicited contacts from io Products’ CEO to OpenAI executives, including funding pitches and partnership proposals. According to OpenAI, the lawsuit threats only emerged after it became clear OpenAI was not interested in collaboration. A revealing email exchange shows Rugolo pitching \$10 million to Sam Altman, who politely declined, citing his own competing project named “io.”

Further testimonies indicate that meetings between io Products and former Apple employees involved no NDAs, and Rugolo offered to sell io Products outright for \$200 million. Despite this, OpenAI maintained its distance.

The ‘io’ project name, officially decided upon by Jony Ive and Sam Altman in mid-2023, symbolizes “input/output,” signaling a new wave of AI-powered devices aimed at revolutionizing human-computer interaction. The io.com domain was acquired by OpenAI that summer.

Despite io Products’ public statement denying plans to launch in-ear devices soon, filings reveal they have been actively purchasing various headphones to analyze the market. Both companies stress that their products do not directly overlap: OpenAI’s devices are reportedly at least a year away and not in-ear or wearable tech as per declarations by the team.

The filings argue the products’ differences are significant enough to avoid customer confusion, referencing past court precedents supporting this view.

What Undercode Say: Analyzing the Tech and Legal Dynamics Behind the Trademark Battle

This lawsuit highlights more than a simple trademark dispute—it reflects a broader contest for leadership in the future of AI-enhanced consumer hardware. OpenAI’s move to register and aggressively defend the ‘io’ brand signals a strategic commitment to owning the interface where artificial intelligence meets everyday user interaction.

Jony Ive’s involvement, alongside OpenAI’s top leadership, suggests the project aims to transcend conventional devices, possibly merging design elegance with groundbreaking AI technology. This partnership alone marks a notable evolution from software-centric AI toward tangible, user-friendly hardware solutions.

The timing is critical: io Products is positioning itself as a serious contender in audio and interface innovation, as seen in its extensive market research into headphones. The company’s careful legal stance—that its products are distinct from OpenAI’s offerings—indicates a desire to avoid direct confrontation yet remain competitive.

OpenAI’s recounting of repeated, unsolicited engagement attempts by io Products reveals the intense pressure smaller startups face when challenging tech giants. This dynamic is typical in Silicon Valley, where ideas and talent are highly contested, and intellectual property battles often serve as proxies for market dominance.

The email exchange between Rugolo and Altman is particularly telling. Altman’s polite but firm refusal underscores OpenAI’s confidence in its own ‘io’ project and unwillingness to merge or partner on terms set by io Products.

Legally, the case rests heavily on product similarity and potential customer confusion. Given the differing timelines and product scopes—OpenAI’s device being a year away and not an in-ear model—the court may lean towards dismissing the trademark challenge, favoring innovation fluidity over restrictive trademark claims.

This lawsuit also reflects the evolving nature of AI hardware design, where the traditional boundaries of tech companies blur as former Apple veterans bring their design expertise to AI startups, increasing the stakes and raising the bar for user experience.

For the broader market, the outcome will signal how aggressively AI-driven hardware brands can stake their claims on trademarks, impacting future innovation and collaboration models. Will smaller startups be able to coexist with tech giants, or will the giants’ legal muscle shape the landscape?

Ultimately, this fight is about the future of AI interfaces — who controls the name, who owns the vision, and who leads the next generation of human-computer interaction.

Fact Checker Results ✅❌

The filings confirm OpenAI and io Products have distinctly different product timelines and categories, reducing likelihood of trademark confusion. ✅
Email evidence supports OpenAI’s claim of unsolicited and persistent overtures from io Products. ✅
io Products’ denial of near-term in-ear device releases aligns with declarations by their team, corroborating their legal argument. ✅

Prediction 🔮

Given the evidence and precedent, the court is likely to dismiss io Products’ trademark lawsuit against OpenAI. OpenAI’s strong position—backed by clear timelines, product differentiation, and documented communications—makes a convincing case for maintaining control over the ‘io’ brand. This decision could embolden tech giants to safeguard their AI hardware trademarks more assertively, while also encouraging startups to clearly define product scopes early on to avoid legal conflicts. The ‘io’ project, combining Jony Ive’s design influence with OpenAI’s AI prowess, is poised to set new standards for AI-driven user experiences in the coming years.