Blayne Sucks

So one of the more interesting legal cases that we’re likely to see develop in the next few years is the Apple vs. Cisco case disputing the trademark on the name iPhone. If you aren’t familiar with the case, here’s a quick overview. Last week at Macworld, Apple announced a new revolutionary cell phone / computer / everything gadget called iPhone. Unfortunately, Cisco had previously bought a company that owned the trademark for the name “iPhone.” Apple knew this and had previously tried to acquire the trademark, but Cisco was not interested in selling it. Immediately after the public announcement of Apple’s new product, Cisco sued them. On the face of it, this appears to be a pretty open and shut case. Experts are saying that Cisco will likely win the lawsuit, so it will be interesting to see how it is dealt with and if Apple will settle.

The things that confuse me about this case are twofold. First, another product at Macworld called the AppleTV was announced. The press and technology speculators were hoping / predicting that Apple would launch an “iTV” product. In fact, Steve jobs even mentioned that he was sure he would accidentally refer to the product as an “iTV” during the announcement despite the official name being an AppleTV, which has a logo that is the little Apple with a bite missing on the right side next to the letters ‘T’ and ‘V’. Why not just use the same technique for the iPhone?

My second question is why not just do the same thing that worked so well for the Mac and pick a type of apple? For example, call it a Gala. It’s short, fits with the company, and even if there was a trademark issue it would be possible to simply run through the alternatives until an apple name was found that would work. This has appeal to me, but then I’m not a marketing executive at Apple.