How Does an Apple Sound?

I have been critical in the past of some of Apple's apparent trademark gaffes (here, here, and here), but I do like the company's products--I own two Apple computers and two iPods.  (This represents great progress for me.  In college, those of us in engineering referred to Macs as "MacIncrash" computers, having had too much experience losing data on them.)

The Unofficial Apple Weblog ("TUAW") posted some excerpts of an video interview of Jim Reekes done by the blog One More Thing (a Dutch blog).  Mr. Reekes was a programmer at Apple for eleven years or so, roughly from 1988 until 1999, and, among other things, he created the distinctive sound that nearly every Apple computer makes when starting up

In the excerpts posted at TUAW (note: there are a couple of profanities), Reekes discusses some of the history of the startup sound as well as the genesis of the name of the "sosumi" chime.  There are interesting legal aspects to both.  As Reekes notes a couple of times, the startup sound is quite distinctive--a word that signals trademark significance--yet I have been unable to locate a federal trademark registration for it.  Even so, it seems to enjoy fairly broad common law rights--enough that audiences recognized it in the movie Wall-E.  This is one trademark that Apple has gotten quite right.

The full interview is much better than the excerpts at TUAW, however it is an hour long.  TUAW also dubbed in some of the sounds under discussion, which might help the uninitiated.

Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Big Numbers in Downloads and Domain Names

You may have heard the news that iTunes has hit the 10 billion (with a "b") mark in number of songs downloaded.  Sales began in 2003.  That's an average pace of more than 1.4 billion downloads a year.  Considering that a typical single song retails for $0.99 on iTunes (likely higher than average price, as many albums with more than ten songs go for $9.99), I thought, "Wow, that's about $10 billion in sales!"  Well, yes and no.  It's only $9.9 billion in sales--$100 million short of $10 billion.  I sometimes tend to think that one decimal place, one hundredth, is "close," and in a sense, $9.9 billion is close to $10 billion.  In another sense, $100 million is a lot of money standing on its own. 

This reminds me of a point made at a trademark infringement trial a few years ago.  A lawyer (not me) asked a business owner whether a production cost difference of a few pennies per piece part was a big deal--hoping to make the point that it was insubstantial.  The owner replied, "It's a big deal when I'm ordering hundreds of thousands of parts."  All of this, of course, is not new.  I recall learning about economies of scale in my 10th grade Economics class, though the lesson obviously continues to impress. 

But here is another big number to consider:  the folks over at FairWinds recently discovered a company that was losing 47 million initial web impressions to typosquatting domain namesJosh Bourne has a recent post at the Domain Name Strategy blog discussing this and some related SEO (search engine optimization) issues, and it is worth a read. 

Pay attention to how those little things add up!

A Frisbee By Any Other Name?

In reading news of the passing of Fred Morrison, inventor of the Frisbee ®, I was surprised to learn that the Frisbee wasn't always called "Frisbee."  Morrison sold his rights to Wham-O in 1957 ("sold" being used loosely -- he apparently earned more than $2M in royalties).  Morrison had dubbed earlier prototypes of the flying disc with the following names:  the Pluto Platter, the Whirlo-Way, and Flyin-Saucer.  Morrison's reaction to Wham-O's name of Frisbee?  "I thought the name was a horror."  He later recanted.   According to CNN, Wham-O's inspiration for the Frisbee name was the Frisbie Pie Company, whose pie tins were apparently used by college students as early flying discs. 

So, let the speculation begin:  how much is the success of the Frisbee due to the name, and how much is due to everything else (design, functionality, enjoyment, etc.)?  Although it is probably impossible to ever know the answer, I submit that a good name is probably worth at least 10% of sales.  (The above reports peg sales at 200 million units.)  Is there a rule of thumb in the marketing industry for this, or is anyone aware of any studies that have attempted to quantify this?  I also note that Frisbee is a solid, almost staccato two-syllable word, like iPod, Apple, Sony, Honda, Nike, Kindle, and many other popular brands that seem to have staying power.

By the way, you want horror?  How about the horror of this:  point your browser to frisbee.com.  Go ahead, try it.  As of this writing, it redirects to this page--a big pay-per-click page of flying disc ads, none of which mention "Frisbee."  The page is titled, FLYINGDISCS.ORG, with the subtitle, "Ashes fly back into the face of him who throws them."  Sounds like there may be some bad blood there!

I should also point out the "horror" of the name "Frisbee Golf," both from a trademark standpoint and as an avid player in the game of disc golf.  While I am generally a fan of Wham-O products, I think Wham-O was a little late to the modern incarnation of disc golf and the specialized discs used in the sport, which are substantially smaller and flatter than a traditional Frisbee disc (think Ultimate Frisbee) with a heavy, hard rim.  I daresay Wham-O would not take kindly to the Professional Disc Golf Association changing its name to the Professional Frisbee Golf Association.  (FYI, two of the more popular brands in the disc golf biz are Innova and Discraft.)

And the real geeks can see Morrison's original design patent here, and the later utility patent for the distinctive grooves that appear on the shoulder of Frisbee discs here.  (Distinctive?  Yes.  Trademarkable?  No, because the grooves are functional.  I'll spare you the calculus that explains the aerodynamics . . . for now.)

iPad, the Latest Brand Bait?

Putting aside, for now, the unsettled question of who currently owns the iPad trademark, and Dan's perspective on Apple's trademark clearance strategies, from last week, look at what our finely-tuned e-mail spam filter just snagged:

It is a similar story to my previous Free Dell XPS Laptop Spam Scam? blog post from last December. Here, however, the Apple, iPad, and the (possible) iPad configuration trademarks, are the newest form of brand bait for what appears to be an ongoing type of spam e-mail scam. They're fast. It only took about two weeks after Apple's announcement of the iPad for these folks to bait their electronic hook with the newest branding lure.

By the way, how is it that these folks can make the free offer before Apple's iPad tablet is even available to the public? As of today, Apple still has a notify me page, if you'd like to "be among the first to receive iPad." So, doesn't the present unavailability of the iPad add to the misleading nature of the above advertisement because it seeks "testers" for this "new" product?

What do you think, misleading advertising, fair use of Apple's intellectual property?

This story also appears related to the topic covered in my previous Is Wal-Mart Giving Away Free $1,000 Gift Cards? blog post too.

What do these unsolicited e-mail programs have in common? Well, besides the fact that they all appear to originate from Canada (for reasons unknown to me), they use well-known, if not famous brands to attract attention online and convince you to supply them with your e-mail address. Really, would anyone pay even an ounce of attention to any of these e-mail spam solicitations without the unauthorized use of these popular brand names and images?

In an apparent attempt to avoid misleading anyone and confusion, of course, as was the case with the Free Dell XPS offer and the Wal-Mart $1,000 Gift Card offer, the Apple iPad ad offers a purported disclaimer:

The advertisers in this email are not affiliated with any of the above brands.

This is a third party advertisement sent to you by the list owner. If you no longer wish to receive email from this advertiser, please write Reward Group 191 7 West 4th Avenue, Suite 279 Vancouver, B.C. VJ6-1M7 or visit our email removal site by click here.

If you do not wish to receive correspondence from the list manager you will need to follow the unsubscribe instructions provide by the list manager on how to remove you from their list.

Who are the advertisers? Who is the list owner? It says the advertisers are not affiliated with any of the brands, so does that mean the list owner is? Does this disclaimer do the job with claims relating to likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, sponsorship, and approval?

Even in the unlikely event it does, what about claims for initial interest confusion? Where is the disclaimer for that additional type of unlawful trademark confusion? And, since there is a reasonable claim of trademark fame for many of these brands, is it even possible to have a disclaimer that avoids a state or federal dilution claim concerning a famous mark?

An Ode to the Brand of Brands, the King of Cola: Coke

   

Dear Coke:

I love you. You are an incredible product. You are the Babe Ruth of soft drinks, the proprietor of the word “cola,” and most of all, the brand of all brands. Your brand is not just bulletproof; it’s indestructible—even from self-inflicted damage.

Interbrand, the global branding giant, recently valued you at 63.3 billion dollars. We’re not talking stimulus money here, but that’s huge. Most brands would be happy with .3 billion dollars.

About a million times a day someone orders a Coke in a restaurant that serves the number two cola and is immediately given an apology, “I’m sorry, is Pepsi OK?” You have your closest competitor, a major brand in its own right, constantly admitting that they are not you. Have you ever heard somebody order a “Rum and Pepsi?” I haven’t.

You guys redesigned Santa Claus, for crying out loud.

   

Years ago, your name became slang for a dangerous drug. But who cares? Heck, you once had a bit of it in your formula, right? For some brands it would be a death sentence; for you, it’s a cool factoid of your heritage.

And that secret formula story is downright mythic. Created by Dr. Pemberton in 1886--only two people have it and each knows only half. One guy has it committed to memory and the other spent the last eight years in an undisclosed location with Dick Cheney shooting Pepsi cans off fence posts. Ok, that’s a stretch.

You are so beloved by your customers that you have survived 100 years of changing tastes, cultural upheaval, and most famously, shooting yourself in both feet by introducing New Coke and dumping your flagship product. Did customers go running to a competitor and tank your sales, as happened to Tropicana this year for nothing more than a package change? No, they simply demanded in various levels of outrage that you bring it back. And you did.

Now that’s brand LOYALTY.

(A brand tangent: Which was worse: Vista or New Coke? Hard to say, but Coke just said, “Oops, my bad!” and moved on. Microsoft refused to back down and helped Apple grow.)

Branding briefs have leaked out from Coca Cola’s global headquarters in Atlanta (the city where the very first Coke was sold) stating that Coke should be positioned as the essence of life, an indivisible part of living fabulously. (Current slogan: “Open Happiness”) Coke is a global symbol of America, the most exported element of our culture, a fixture in hundreds of countries around the world.

 

And yet… And yet, as a brand you are terrifically hard to learn from. Mere mortal brands must worry constantly about their customers’ changing tastes and fickle loyalties. Coke? Not so much. I’m not saying you don’t market your cans off, but you’re so ubiquitous, so everywhere and everything, that it’s pretty hard to emulate your success. Sometimes it seems like you can afford to sponsor every sporting event on earth. Where’s the lesson in that?

Here’s what marketers can take home along with an ice cold six pack of cola heaven:

Coke is remarkably consistent. They haven’t meaningfully changed their Coca Cola name or logo in well over 100 years. (The original design was handwritten by Dr. Pemberton’s bookkeeper, Frank Robinson, in 1886. You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried.) They own the colors red and white and stick with them. (They recast Santa in their colors for a promotion in the 1930s that became the standard vision of the jolly old elf.) Coke owns and leverages the most famous package trademark ever—the Coke bottle. What does a Pepsi bottle look like?

Coke is a leader and acts like one. They execute a lot of marketing elements very well, from aggressive advertising and promotion, to highly effective distribution, to pairing themselves with other wholesome leading brands like McDonalds, NASCAR, American Idol and the Olympics. And Coke knows its brand story. Visit their web site and they’ll tell you. Click on a link and they’ll have their customers tell you. They keep their brand story alive and well and linked to American life in good times or bad. Coke keeps us going. It’s always the right time for a Coke.

      

Yes, Coke, I brand-love you. You have elevated your brand of sugar water to the status of cultural icon, yet I can fill up anytime I want for less than a buck. You are the amazing, infallible super-brand. In fact, you said it best with your slogan from many years ago, and it’s still true today: Coke is it.

—Dave Taylor, Taylor Brand Group

 

To Do: Secure Domain Name for New Product

This reminder is a bit late for new Christmas-season consumer products, but it bears repeating year round, as companies contemplate new products:  buy domain names associated with a new product before announcing the new product.  This seems like an obvious thing to do, but I regularly read stories where companies fail to perform this step of a new product launch, then have to go and spend thousands of dollars to secure related domain names that could have been purchased for perhaps $10 per year prior to launch. 

The latest lesson comes from the otherwise savvy Apple Inc., who just won an uncontested UDRP arbitration on the domain name "ipodnano.com."  As flagged by Domain Name Wire, Fusion Media Ltd. registered ipodnano.com two days before Apple announced the product.  In order to win a UDRP arbitration, the complainant must show that the respondent both registered and used the domain name in bad faith.  Having registered this particular domain name a mere two days before the product launch suggests that Fusion Media either (1) made a fortuitous guess, or (2) heard advanced news about the new product.  Even if Fusion Media's guess on the "nano" part of the name was completely in good faith, the "ipod" part of the name was not.  Fusion Media did not respond to the UDRP arbitration complaint, so we may never know, but it is interesting to note that Apple apparently only asserted its trademark rights in IPOD in the arbitration.  (And, as I think of it, maybe Apple isn't so savvy . . .)

To borrow a phrase from Steve Baird, other examples of this sort of thing can be found here, here, and here

You See Blue Ovals, I See 3D Spheres

I must admit, I was quite intrigued by Dan Kelly’s Duets blog entry “I See Blue Ovals” (August 28, 2009). It got me thinking about some of the trends occurring in logo design today. My 20+ years in the world of branding has witnessed a few notable changes. Perhaps the most significant is the application of 3D effects to identity design. Many logos which were originally two-dimensional (circles), have recently morphed into spheres.

Take AT&T’s 3D sphere which replaced a 2D circle logo.

Minolta’s 3D design form also replaced its old 2D form.

XBOX has adopted a 3D design. 

Similarly, Xerox now uses a 3D sphere—a dramatic departure from their old logo (some would say that their new design borrowed heavily from XBOX).

This proliferation of 3D spheres also includes Firefox, BT, Sony Ericsson, and Wikipedia, to cite a few.

Part of the explanation for this transformation is pure evolution and advance in the field of design itself. CAD programs are now common in the design community, enabling and encouraging the application of three-dimensional drawing for corporate identities.

3D logo design isn’t limited to the development of spheres. GM, ABC, Apple, Ford (yes, the blue oval), Dell, VW, and Chevron (as well as countless others), have all been redesigned to bring dimensionality as well as a more modern, contemporary look and feel to their visual identities. As this trend continues, look for more logos of all shapes and sizes to take on 3D effects.

--Alan Bergstrom, Brand Insights

Describe Different

"What am I?"

Every invention begs this essential question of identity.

The answer is found in the product's descriptor. A descriptor defines a thing, categorizing it, framing it, positioning it and signaling its intended future.

A product that doesn't claim to break new ground adopts its category's standard convention. For example, a new, run-of-the-mill digital camera would be marketed as a "digital camera".

A revolutionary product, on the other hand, deserves an innovative product descriptor. And, sometimes, a me-too product benefits from one, too.

The trouble is, innovation is easier done than said.

I wrote in this article about the "brander's paradox": Human instincts make us wary of unfamiliar and different things, yet differentiation is essential to a product's success.

By definition, an innovation is unfamiliar. How can its product descriptor differentiate without triggering people's fear of the unknown?

The New York Times gives us an idea in this recent article about product descriptors,

"When people encounter something they don't recognize, they make sense of it by associating it with something familiar."

The most effective new descriptors combine familiar terms in unfamiliar ways. They make product function or form clearly understood, even upon first exposure. Novel descriptors insufficiently informative should at the very least pique interest.

Descriptors that differ

The products shown below the jump illustrate different approaches:

Starbucks VIA ready brew

It's a me-too product but you can't tell from its descriptor. This is really instant coffee, a product designator unbecoming Starbucks. "Ready brew" emphasizes the chief benefit of saving time by using current, casual vernacular.

Dreyer's Slow Churned ice cream

Food scientists have a name for everything, but that name isn't always appetizing. The dessert wizards at Dreyer's, for example, had perfected a new way to blend low-fat ice cream so it acquires the texture and richness of full-fat ice cream. In precise but dry science lingo, they called the process "low-temperature extrusion". Doesn't exactly make the mouth water, does it?

Dreyer's isn't dumb. They knew "extrusion" had no place on a quart of mint chip. They needed a term that had immediate appetite appeal. The words of their final, market-facing descriptor, "Slow Churned", taps into the semiotics of yesteryear, when food was simpler, unprocessed, and naturally indulgent. "Churned" evokes hand-mixed barrels of butter, hinting at the product's creamy richness. "Slow" connotes food that's unprocessed and handcrafted.

On the heels of Slow Churned ice cream's astounding success, Breyer's flattered Dreyer's with their imitative descriptor, Double Churned ice cream.

Disclaimer: I led the naming of Dreyer's Slow Churned ice cream as Global Director of Naming and Writing at Landor Associates.

Bing decision engine

Can't fault Microsoft for trying. Bing is a search engine, pure and simple. Although "decision engine" will never become part of the vernacular, it does suggest how Bing is different: Giving relevant information to help make a informed decision, instead of overwhelming with googlebytes of information.


Noah's Stuffed Saladwich

Coined words are hard to get right. This inventive, efficient descriptor gets mixed results. At a glance, "saladwich" looks like a real word because it begins and ends with the same letters as "sandwich" (a phenomenon cheekily called, "typoglycemia"). But "Saladwich" sounds clunky because "-wich" is not a productive suffix and doesn't normally combine with other words (unlike the "-tini" of "martini" that gives us "chocotini" and "apple-tini"). "Saladwich" will sound less contrived as it becomes more familiar.

Blackberry wireless email solution

Technology products that blend hardware, software and services are tough to describe. More often than not, catch-all words like "solution" or "system" are employed. Though vague, these words avoid long descriptors that specify all key product dimensions. "Wireless email solution" is a lot shorter than "phone, PDA, email, internet, software and services." To its credit (and my alma mater's, Lexicon), the differentiation in Blackberry is borne primarily by the Blackberry name itself, not its ho-hum descriptor.


Segway personal transporter

This NYT article discusses the difficulty of categorizing the Segway, a product that's really unlike anything else. Although the article touches on the brand name, it doesn't mention Segway's official descriptor. "Personal transporter" suggests who the product is for and what it does at a basic level, but it doesn't capture how revolutionary the product is, what it looks like or even whether it's motorized.

But a descriptor can't do everything. Like most products visibly inventive, a photo of the Segway speaks volumes. And messaging, mostly communicated through PR, does the heavy lifting of describing Segway technology and its applications.

Describing technology convergence

Each of the products above fit, more or less, into one functional category. But in electronic devices, disparate functions inevitably converge. Over time, we've seen phones integrate video cameras, music players evolve into movie players, and televisions that browse the Web.

Technology convergence presents a naming quandary: How do you categorize a product that merges others?

There are five approaches a marketer can take when describing one device that does the work of many:

  • List all of the converged technologies (e.g. "all-in-one printer, fax, scanner") Long but accurate, clear and communicative. Needs to change as new functions are added. Generic and not protectable.
  • Cite one function only (e.g. "mobile phone" [the built-in camera is not referenced in the descriptor]) Short; relies on copy and imagery to tout other functions. Doesn't suggest "new". Generic, not protectable.
  • Use one of the technology descriptors as the focus but modify it (e.g. "smartphone") Short; borrows from the familiar to aid understanding. These descriptors can take a long time to be adopted by industry and customers. It helps if the modifier is already understood from other categories and retains that meaning. May or may not be protectable.
  • Come up with something totally new (e.g. "media center") In naming, unfamiliarity is friction. Descriptors like these resist widespread adoption. They typically require a lot of time and money to gain traction. May or may not be protectable.
  • Use no descriptor at all (e.g. "iPod") This is a risky approach and is only viable when the device marketer has (1) control over all communications, distribution and sales and (2) a lot of money.

Apple has conspicuously avoided using a product descriptor per se for iPod. It turns out, they didn't need one. No distributors or resellers could tinker with Apple's disciplined and exacting messaging. At launch, the ad headline, "1000 songs in your pocket" made it clear the iPod was a portable music player.

Today, the iPod has grown in function and familiarity. So confident is Apple, they answer "What is iPod touch?" with "A great iPod. A great pocket computer. A great portable game player." When you can recursively describe your product and people get it, you've transcended product descriptors and become a category unto yourself.

The iPod answers "What am I?" with the most basic statement of identity, "I am me".

I guess if you're iPod, that's all you need to know.

Anthony Shore, Operative Words

Take the innovation descriptor challenge!

Innovations are easier done than said. See if you can come up with better product descriptors than these:

  • Segway personal transporter
  • Blackberry wireless email solution
  • The Internet global network
  • Onstar in-vehicle safety and security system
  • Wii console

Post your best ideas in the comments section.

Alpha Watch: Li'l "a" Goes to the "e" Market

E-mail a gift card

The single-letter branding and trademark truncation trend continues.

Can you name the retailer selling online gift cards sent by e-mail, using no other identification besides the li'l "a" shown here?

Does this li'l "a" logo with a radish inside help?

How about these, do they help? Valentine's Day Winter Hat

Well, just so you know, it's not this retailer: 

Assuming you can't wait any longer, here is the answer.

If you were able to wait, and want some more clues, the retailer in question owns a registration for aStore, it acquired this li'l "a" from Alexa Internet:and is now seeking federal registration of this version of li'l "a" too:

See here, here, here, and here.

As you may recall from my last post, the design appearing beneath the lowercase "a" has been identified as a "miscellaneous" design. Now, it is being identified as a "smile or curved arrow."

As for others who also have shown interest in protecting their own li'l "a" marks in connection with "retail" services, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

As for capital "A" logos in connection with "retail" services, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, hereherehere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

So, given all this, what is the meaningful scope of protection for a service mark comprising li'l "a"?

Apple vs. Apple: Protecting Your Brand Abroad

The inquiring minds at TechDirt have unearthed a spat between Apple and Woolworths (the supermarket chain in New Zealand and Australia) due to the latter’s adoption of a curly-cue-letter-W-shaped mark, shown below:

 

 

Putting aside dilution issues, the central question would appear to be whether confusion is possible, let alone likely, given that Woolworths is a grocery store where people purchase…groceries, including apples (both green and red!) and Apple sells computers, phones and addictive little music devices. Many of the folks leaving comments to the article answered this question in the negative.

But there’s a larger issue lurking beneath the surface of this spat—specifically, the fact that Woolworths is seeking registration of its mark in connection with electronics and other goods that are related and may in fact compete with Apple’s electronic devices. New Zealand and Australia, like the United States, are “first to use” countries, meaning that purveyors of goods and services may assert rights in their trademarks and service marks upon first use and accrue common law rights from that time, which in this case may well provide Apple with priority and victory over Woolworths in New Zealand and Australia (provided, of course, that consumers are likely to confuse the two marks for electronics and related goods and services). 

In contrast, if New Zealand or Australia were “first to file” countries, Apple would be facing a tougher battle. “First to file” countries—including much of the European Union, China, Japan and India—allow the earliest filer to obtain a registration of a given mark. These countries likewise often allow registrants to claim the entirety of goods and services in any given class, making challenges for U.S. companies even more time-consuming and costly.

Regardless of the filing system at issue, it is important for U.S. companies to consider foreign businesses and their trademarks in their overall strategy in investing in and protecting their brands.

Lessons from the iPhone Trademark Spat

I don't recall what I was doing in January of 2007, but I apparently missed the news that Cisco had sued Apple over Apple's then-newly announced iPhone product.  I actually stumbled upon this accidentally when I recently searched for federal trademark registrations for IPHONE and found only one, and it belongs to Cisco.  (PDF here.)  Your eyes are not deceiving you:  since 1999, IPHONE has been a federally registered trademark for use in connection with "computer hardware and software for providing integrated telephone communication with computerized global information networks," and Cisco is the current owner of this registration.  No joke.  Look here

This raises dozens of questions in my mind, of which I will present only a few. 

Q1.  Did Apple conduct a trademark search prior to rolling out the iPhone?

Q2.  If so, what was the legal and business thought at Apple about Cisco's IPHONE trademark registration?

Q3.  What should a company like Cisco do when a junior user adops an identical trademark for use on identical goods, and the junior user's product is wildly successful?

My suggested answers are after the jump.

A1.  I would think that Apple conducted a trademark search.  Comprehensive commercial trademark searches are not very expensive, and a legal opinion on the search results are also not terribly expensive.

A2.  Apple probably thought that it could buy the IPHONE mark and registration from Cisco, or at least license it from them.  (According to Wikipedia, Apple and Cisco had been negotiating a license prior to Apple's announcement of the iPhone.)  Consider that Apple also likely vetted other product names, some of which might have had larger issues in other countries--there can be many moving parts in a global trademark clearance process.  Consider further that Apple owns federal trademark registrations for IMAC and ICHAT for use in connection with computer hardware and software, and these marks and registrations have priority over Cisco's IPHONE registration.  (Whether this is good leverage could be the subject of another post entirely.)

A3.  In my view, Cisco had as near a slam-dunk lawsuit to enjoin Apple's use of its mark as I have ever seen.  Even so, suing out even an apparently excellent claim is not cheap, and adjudicated decisions are never guaranteed.  As the terms of the eventual settlement were confidential, I hope for Cisco's sake that Apple paid (or is paying) a premium for use of the mark.  Also, Cisco has apparently consented to the registration of at least some of Apple's pending IPHONE trademark applications.  This should be worth an additional premium in a negotiation of this sort.  In short, when in Cisco's position, and the junior party hands you lemons, it probably makes the most business sense to make lemonade.