Trademark

Trademark law news

OpenAI Erases ‘io’ Branding After Trademark Clash with AI Startup IYO

by

OpenAI has removed all public references to “io” — the hardware startup co-founded by legendary Apple designer Sir Jony Ive — following a U.S. federal court’s temporary restraining order arising from a trademark infringement complaint filed by rival company IYO.

The development marks a significant legal hurdle for OpenAI’s ambitious hardware expansion and raises key questions about brand identity and intellectual property in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry.

What Prompted the Move?

OpenAI, which recently announced a multi-billion-dollar partnership with Ive’s startup to develop a next-generation consumer AI device, quietly removed mentions of “io” from its website, social media platforms, and press announcements. This action came shortly after a federal judge responded to IYO’s claim that OpenAI’s use of “io” could confuse consumers due to the similarities between the names.

In compliance with the restraining order, OpenAI has halted public usage of the brand name, though it maintains that it disagrees with the allegations.

“We don’t agree with the complaint and are reviewing our options,” OpenAI stated.

Background: OpenAI & Ive’s Billion-Dollar Deal

In May 2025, OpenAI entered into a deal with Jony Ive’s design lab LoveFrom and funding support from SoftBank, creating a new hardware venture reportedly valued at $6.4–$6.5 billion. The collaboration is aimed at launching a cutting-edge AI device designed to revolutionize human-AI interaction — a move seen as a challenge to existing consumer electronics players like Apple, Meta, and Amazon.

The device, still under development, is not expected to launch before 2026, and court filings confirm that it is not a wearable or in-ear product, despite earlier speculations.

IYO’s Legal Challenge

The trademark complaint was filed by IYO, a California-based startup that also specializes in AI hardware and is backed by Alphabet’s experimental division. IYO claims that the similarity between “IYO” and “io” could cause brand confusion and potentially harm its market identity.

The federal judge agreed that IYO’s concerns were credible enough to warrant a temporary restraining order, pending a full hearing scheduled for October 2025.

Public Reactions and Industry Implications

The tech community reacted swiftly. Elon Musk, an outspoken critic of OpenAI in recent months, responded to the news with a cryptic “🤨” emoji on social media, adding fuel to the already contentious atmosphere surrounding AI development.

Despite the branding conflict, OpenAI has confirmed that its partnership with Ive remains intact and that the development of the hardware device will proceed as planned.

What’s Next?

A court hearing in October 2025 will determine the fate of the “io” branding.

Meanwhile, the AI-powered device being built by OpenAI and Ive continues to be shrouded in secrecy, with analysts predicting a major reveal in 2026.

Use Of Sanskrit for new patent technology

by

The Lok Sabha secretariat has decided to provide simultaneous interpretation of parliamentary proceedings in Six different languages including Sanskrit. This introduction of Sanskrit interpretation in the Lok Sabha is a testament to the government’s efforts to bring the language into the mainstream. This initiative can serve as a stepping stone for broader applications of Sanskrit in official, scientific, and legal frameworks and proceedings. As a language if it can facilitate real-time parliamentary debates, why not intellectual property filings? In current era other countries are embracing their linguistic heritage in scientific and technical field. India has the opportunity to take a pioneering step by integrating Sanskrit into its patent system.
Although, Sanskrit itself is not directly related to patent or the legal world in the same way as English or other common languages for intellectual property. However, there are a few reasons why Sanskrit might come up in discussions related to patents or intellectual property, even if it’s not the primary language of patents:
1. Historical Context: Sanskrit is one of the oldest languages in the world and has a rich historical and cultural significance. If a intellectual property involves traditional knowledge, especially from regions where Sanskrit is or was historically used, it may be relevant to discussions on the protection of ancient wisdom or practices. In such cases, Sanskrit could be part of the research or documentation, especially when related to traditional Indian medicine, spiritual practices, or ancient technologies that might be patented.

2. Patent Language Innovation: The Patents are usually filed in legal and technical languages (like English, Chinese, Japanese etc). The creative solutions or innovations described in patents might reference Sanskrit, particularly when the patent involves innovations related to language processing, machine learning, or translation tools for rare or ancient languages. For example, a patent could be related to systems that analyze Sanskrit texts or make them more accessible through modern technology.

3. Symbolic Significance: The companies might use Sanskrit or Sanskrit-based words as part of trademarks and for branding their products and services, especially in tech or pharma industries. If a brand name or concept connected to Sanskrit were part of a larger patent dispute or related to intellectual property rights, it might show up in legal news or patent filings.

4. Technology for Translation: Patents related to AI and natural language processing might be used to improve or automate the translation of ancient languages like Sanskrit into modern languages. This could be valuable in academia, research, and technology, which could tie into the patent landscape.

It can reflects India’s ability to connect its ancient traditions and knowledge with modern needs. By reviving Sanskrit in this modern context, India could underscore the enduring relevance of ancient wisdom in addressing contemporary challenges.

“Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark: Delhi High Court

by

The recent judgement issued by Delhi High Court on February 7 says that the name “Ratan Tata” is a well-known trademark which needs to be protected as per law.
Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observation while hearing a trademark suit filed by Tata Group and Sir Ratan Tata Trust against misusing the Tata brand, trademarks and the name of late Ratan Tata. [Sir Ratan Tata Trust Vs Dr. Rajat Srivastava].
On February 7, 2025, the court prohibited Rajat Srivastava, from hosting an event under the name “Ratan Tata Icon Award.” The court also restricted him from using the name and photograph of the late Ratan Tata for any purpose, including conferring any awards. The judgement is to protect the reputation and legacy of Ratan Tata, a highly respected business figure and philanthropist. The injunction likely stems from concerns over the misuse of his name and image in a manner that could potentially mislead or cause confusion about his endorsement of such events.
Generally, a well-known trademark is a mark that has achieved such a high degree of recognition among the public. It’s a mark that’s so famous and recognizable that its mere presence evokes the brand in the minds of consumers.
The lawsuit filed by Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trust emphasized the long-standing reputation and legacy of the Tata name, which has been a symbol of trust, quality, and ethical business practices in India for over 150 years. They argued that the unauthorized use of the Tata name and Ratan Tata’s image, particularly in the organization of events and awards, misled the public into thinking the Tata entities were endorsing them.
Rajat Srivastava and his organization, allegedly exploited the Tata brand’s goodwill by charging nomination fees for the event and promoting it across social media platforms. This created confusion among the public, making them believe the event was connected to or endorsed by the Tata Trusts. Despite the Tata Trusts issuing a takedown notice to stop such promotions, the defendants allegedly continued advertising the event, prompting the legal action.
The court ruled in favor of the Tata Group and the Sir Ratan Tata Trusts, granting them a permanent injunction against Rajat Srivastava and his organization. This means that the defendants are now permanently prohibited from using the Tata name, trademarks, or Ratan Tata’s image in any future events, promotions, or activities. However, the court directed the defendants to file an affidavit confirming their commitment to not engage in such activities going forward.
While the plaintiffs, Tata Group and the Tata Trusts, expressed satisfaction with the court’s ruling, they chose to waive any claims for damages or legal costs. This decision emphasizes that their main focus is on protecting the integrity of the Tata brand and preventing future misuse, rather than seeking any financial compensation.

Ratan_Tata_Vs_Delhi_todayDownload