hello@yoursite.com
+1 650-253-0000
775 New York Ave, Brooklyn, New York 11203

IYO v. OpenAI

  • IYO v. OpenAI
Keegan & Donato Consulting, LLC

IYO v. OpenAI

Trademark Survey Evidence at the Preliminary Injunction Stage

Survey evidence can matter in likelihood of confusion disputes, especially at the preliminary injunction stage. In IYO, Inc. v. IO Products, Inc., the court granted IYO’s motion for a preliminary injunction after considering a consumer survey by Mark Keegan.

The defendants were IO Products, Inc., OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI LLC, Sam Altman, and Jonathan Paul Ive. The court found that the defendants criticized the survey but offered no competing consumer survey.

CaseIYO, Inc. v. IO Products, Inc.
Survey results62.3% total confusion; 24% net confusion against a control group
OutcomePreliminary injunction granted
PublishedJune 1, 2026

What Happened

Why survey evidence mattered

The dispute involved the defendants’ use of the “IO” branding mark in relation to IYO’s existing mark. IYO’s survey reported 62.3% total confusion and 24% net confusion against a control group.

According to the order, the confusion came from shared letters, similar logos, and near-identical “IO” and “IYO” branding. The court analyzed the survey under the Sleekcraft factors, specifically actual confusion. At this early stage it worked from a developing record, not a full trial record, and the defendants had no competing survey showing a lack of confusion.

The defendants challenged the methodology

Their criticisms included:

The survey did not replicate marketplace conditionsIt left out OpenAI branding and other contextIt used an overly broad respondent universeThe population may not match likely purchasers of an AI-enabled consumer device

The court acknowledged these points but did not treat them as enough to exclude the survey. Its focus was the record: IYO offered survey evidence, and the defendants critiqued it without adding factual evidence of their own on actual confusion.

The court considered the survey as evidence of potential marketplace confusion.
The court noted that the defendants criticized the survey without submitting their own factual evidence of consumer confusion.

Criticism is not always enough

The order does not mean surveys automatically prevail, or that methodological flaws are minor. Flaws such as a wrong consumer universe, stimuli that don’t reflect the marketplace, weak controls, leading questions, and a mismatched respondent pool can matter more in expert discovery, depositions, Daubert motions, and trial.

The practical lesson: at the preliminary injunction stage, a court may still weigh disputed survey evidence when the other side offers criticism without a competing survey.

Takeaways

For plaintiffs

A survey can support a preliminary injunction motion as consumer-facing evidence.

For defendants

Criticism may reduce a survey’s force without eliminating it, and the lack of competing evidence can leave the record uneven. The key question is whether criticism alone will lead the court to discount the survey, or whether the defense needs its own evidence.

For strategy

Surveys can matter before trial, not only at trial. One side offers survey evidence, and the other points out weaknesses that may not substitute for competing evidence. Survey strategy is also record strategy.

How much will a survey cost?

Every study is built around the needs of the case, so the cost depends on the design.

See Rates & Fees

Do you have a case that involves likelihood of confusion?

Call us to talk through how survey evidence could fit your matter.

Contact Us

Read the April 23, 2026 court order (PDF)