Editor’s note: The following post was written by guest author Sanjay Sabnani, who is Chairman and CEO of CrowdGather Inc (CRWG.OB), a publicly-traded and leading forum social media network. He is also the administrator of new iPad and tablet computing site Pad Computer Forum.

Last week, Steve Jobs’ iPad launch highlighted perhaps the greatest manifestation of the company’s legendary reality-distortion field that we have seen to date. Apple and Steve went into the iPad launch with a negative trifecta of no domain name, no issued trademark, and no FCC approval. Despite these deficiencies we all saw the Emperor resplendent in a decadent outfit projected from the incandescent glow of a 10 inch tablet.

I say this while being fully aware of the initial criticisms that have surrounded Apple’s last few paradigm-shattering product launches. There is no doubt in my mind that they have and will overcome all that is in front of them, but like previous product launches, the iPad illustrates yet again Apple’s aggressive corporate practices and their belief in the power of their ability to bend reality to fit their needs. The moniker “Jesus Tablet” has been aptly used to describe the messianic nature of the iPad and perhaps it is well deserved not only for the creation of a compelling consumer-oriented computing device, but also because their corporate maneuverings assume that they really can walk on water. Considering the obstacles that still stand before them, bringing this product to market without a few controversial moves will require a leap of faith.

Do they even own the domain name?

Let’s first consider the domain name, iPad.com, which was issued in 1997 to Martine Bejasa of New Jersey. On January 28th, 2010 – the day after the unveiling of the iPad – there was a change in the WHOIS record. Could Apple be the new owner and Martine the newest Apple millionaire? I hope so, as this domain name predates all trademark filings and would have no problem showing up on page one in Google searches for the rest of its natural life if left independent. The new owner is cryptically named “Enero 6”, or January 6th, which might refer to the date that Steve Jobs and his crew decided that they would begin the fight to call this device the iPad.

Three’s company, especially in Trademark disputes

Next, calling their device the iPad was an interesting choice for Apple considering that the Trademark is disputed by not one, but by two other parties and logic would dictate that there is a high likelihood that they will not be issued the trademark. Since when has logic mattered to Apple? A company called Mag-Tek has been selling keypads in commerce with the iPad name for several years now, but Fujitsu has made progress in splitting the iPad trademark for the use in tablet computing for themselves and convinced the USPTO to reopen the trademark for their use in February of 2003. Their application is pending and they have had a Windows CE tablet available for purchase under that name since 2002.

Fujitsu's iPAD device, which is sold in the United States and other areas.

As a recent story on this subject quips, “….Mag-Tek is selling the IPAD under a valid trademark, Fujitsu is selling its iPad with a pending trademark application and Apple has announced (and plans to sell) its own iPad with no trademark at all.” (another story on this here)

Apple needs to convince the USPTO that their iPad is similar to its iPod franchise and that its use of the name iPad will not confuse Mag-Tek’s keypad customers. This is if it can first convince them that Fujitsu is not the rightful owner despite having a pending trademark application on and off since 2003. For skeptics who believe Apple is doomed to failure, one need only take a look at what happened when Apple went up against the rightful trademark owner of the iPhone in 2007. Cisco caved in and agreed to a settlement with Apple that must have been pretty lucrative for them. Apple gets what Apple wants.

And then there’s the FCC

Finally, there is the issue of not having a valid FCC clearance to market or sell the iPad device. This was also the case when Apple introduced the iPhone several years back, but the FCC gave them what they wanted within 30 days and they were good to go. Pundits believe that Apple’s recent moves to allow VOIP services on the iPhone may be a sacrifice to regain the FCC’s good graces after the controversy surrounding their decision to keep Google Talk off the iPhone. Based upon historical precedent- the FCC should rubber stamp their application well before the expected launch date of April 27th.

We shall see how events unfold, but Apple has been here before and Steve Jobs has never been caught naked between the announcement of a new product and its actual launch.

Follow Sanjay on Twitter @crowdgather