Another technology lawyer, Diana McKenzie at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLC in Chicago, said Apple has "made their negotiations a million times worse for themselves" for any future talks with Cisco. "It's the classic mistake; lawyers are constantly saying 'don't put yourself in a position where you have no leverage. The only thing good here is that this reinforces the product name [in the marketplace] if they can end up getting it.

"Somebody was really not thinking," McKenzie said. "It's such a big mistake" to use a name that you don't already have legal rights to use. "Any lawyer would tell you: Don't do it."

Behnam Dayanim, an attorney at Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP in Los Angeles, said it was "reckless of Apple...to publicly announce a name under that kind of context. Even if Apple thinks Cisco has forfeited its rights to the [trade]mark in some way, it shows questionable judgment. My impression is that Apple has been extremely aggressive in promoting its i-brands. This could be another example of trying to bowl through [the situation] no matter what."

Henry Sneath, an attorney at Picadio Sneath Miller & Norton PC in Pittsburgh, Pa., said that trademark law is a "very murky, complicated, very fact-specific law" that gives great discretion to judges, based upon such factors as whether trademark issues create confusion in the marketplace for consumers. "Cisco will have to prove likelihood of confusion," Sneath said.

Apple probably has legal defenses that will make its actions seem more reasonable, Sneath said, such as claims against the validity of the original trademark. But for Apple, a large penalty looms if the court eventually rules against it -- penalties for willfully infringing on a trademark can be tripled, and the court can order payment of full legal fees for the plaintiff, he said.