The battle for the legacy of Twitter It has jumped from mobile phone screens to US courtrooms. Elon Musk's company, now renamed as X Corp., has filed a lawsuit against the startup Operation Bluebird, which intends to take advantage of the social network's name change to acquire the historic brand and launch a new platform with it.
The move comes after Bluebird asked the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to Cancel the registrations for "Twitter" and "Tweet" in the name of X, claiming that the company has effectively abandoned that distinctive mark. Musk and his team, however, maintain that changing their name to X does not, in any way, mean giving up one of the most recognizable assets of the era of microblogging.
How the Twitter trademark conflict begins
Following Twitter's purchase by Elon Musk In 2022, with a valuation of approximately $44.000 billion, the platform initiated an aggressive acquisition process. rebrandingThe changes included a name change to X, the removal of the blue bird, a new logo, and the gradual elimination of references to Twitter in the product, website, and marketing. For some users, this marked the end of the social network as they knew it.
In that context it appears Operation Bluebird, an American startup that claims to want “bring back Twitter” with a new social network very similar to the original, but under the domain twitter.newIts founders argue that X's abandonment of the brand opens a legal window to reclaim the name and use it for their own service.
The company presented a formal request to the USPTO to revoke the ownership of the trademarks "Twitter" and "Tweet" from X Corp., arguing that they are no longer used commercially, have disappeared from the public image of the service, and that there is no real intention of using them again.
According to the documentation sent to the regulator, references to Twitter would have been removed from the products, services and marketing materials by X, which in Bluebird's opinion constitutes a clear case of abandonment under US trademark law.
The Operation Bluebird offensive: twitter.new and the nostalgia of the digital "people"
The strategy of Operation Bluebird It's not limited to a simple registration maneuver. The startup is building a new social network It aims to feel familiar to those who used classic Twitter: a timeline based on short messages, an open conversation dynamic, and that digital "town square" feeling that many users say they miss.
The project is structured around the domain twitter.newwhere Bluebird has set up a website for reserving usernames and a waiting list. According to figures cited in technology media outlets such as The Verge and TechCrunch, More than 146.000 people have already requested a "handle" on the future platform, which demonstrates the symbolic pull that the brand still has.
One of the founders of the initiative, the lawyer Michael Peroff, has publicly argued that no alternative that emerged after Musk's about-face —such as Mastodon, Bluesky or Threads— it has not managed to match the recognition or social function that Twitter had, nor has it replaced the tools for managing social networksTheir stated goal is to rebuild that space for global conversation which, in their view, has been "broken" with the change to X.
To strengthen its position, Bluebird has surrounded itself with profiles possessing insider knowledge. The role of [name of person/company] stands out. Stephen Coates, former trademark attorney for Twitter itself, who has been responsible for submitting part of the documentation to the USPTO. The startup maintains that the renewal of the registrations by X in 2023 does not equate to actual use in commerce, graphically comparing it to «demolish a gym and still pay the membership fee«.
From a legal point of view, Operation Bluebird relies on the figure of the brand abandonmentIn the United States, if a trademark holder ceases to use a distinctive sign effectively and has no intention of resuming it, that mark may be considered abandoned and eligible to be registered by third parties.
X Corp.'s response: "Twitter never went away"
The reaction of X Corp. It has been decisive. The company has presented a lawsuit in a Delaware federal court accusing Operation Bluebird of trying to “to steal brazenly“a “world-famous” brand like Twitter. In the document, Musk’s company maintains that the rebranding to X does not in any way imply relinquishing the rights to the former name.
One of the central arguments of X is that “A rebranding does not equate to abandonment”The company insists that, although the blue bird and the official name have disappeared from the logo, the Twitter brand remains present in practice: it remains registered, The twitter.com domain remains active and redirects to x.com, and a very significant portion of the public continues to use that term.
The lawsuit includes a revealing detail: a December 11th 2025, more of four million users They would have accessed the platform through twitter.comDespite X having announced its withdrawal from the domain weeks earlier, the company's lawyers argue that this metric proves the brand's continued use in the platform's actual traffic.
Furthermore, X emphasizes that both users, media outlets, and advertisers They still colloquially refer to the service as “Twitter” Even publications like “tweets” are still used. This cultural weight, according to the company, demonstrates that the distinctive brand remains “alive and operational” in the digital ecosystem, even though the official name has changed.
The legal front: lawsuit, USPTO and updated Terms of Service
The clash between the two sides has two parallel paths: on one hand, the administrative Procedure in the USPTO regarding the cancellation of the trademarks "Twitter" and "Tweet"; on the other hand, the civil lawsuit by X Corp. for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
In its petition to the trademark office, Operation Bluebird argues that X has “legally abandoned his rights” by removing Twitter from its corporate identity and commercial use. They claim there is no real intention to reclaim the name, even citing a message from Musk himself in 2023 in which he said that “We will soon be saying goodbye to the Twitter brand and, little by little, to all the birds.”.
X, for its part, has reinforced its position with a Terms of Service update of the platform, whose new wording will come into effect on January 15, 2026. That text explicitly specifies that Nothing in the user agreement authorizes third parties to use the names X or Twitternor its trademarks, logos or domains, without the company's written consent.
Prior to this change, the clause focused primarily on the name X, which X Corp. now corrects to state in writing that Twitter remains a protected assetAt the same time, the company is asking the court to order Bluebird to stop using any sign related to Twitter, to deny its trademark application, and to compensate it for damages resulting from what it considers a clear infringement of its rights.
Lawyers specializing in industrial property, such as Josh GerbenThey have indicated in statements collected by technology media that X may have simply been defending himself against the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board from the USPTO, without resorting to a federal lawsuit. For these experts, the legal action demonstrates the extent to which the company is unwilling to let anyone "unearth" a brand it had, in theory, tried to leave behind.
What's really being debated: cultural value, confusion, and business opportunity
Beyond the exchange of writings, what is really being discussed is cultural and economic value of an iconic brand In the digital age, Twitter ceased to be a mere brand name years ago, becoming a verb, a habit, and an infrastructure upon which debates, political campaigns, and global conversations are built.
For X Corp., allowing another company to launch a social network under the Twitter brand would represent a direct confusion for usersThis is something that trademark law often considers crucial. Two services with similar features using the same name—or a virtually identical one—could mislead the public about who is behind the platform.
Operation Bluebird, on the other hand, sees in that cultural imprint a unique business opportunityIf he succeeds in getting the brand declared abandoned, a new social network could emerge with the symbolic weight of Twitter but detached from Musk's decisions and X's reputation. In his narrative, it's not so much about competing with X as it is about “restoring” a digital public space that they consider lost.
The case brings to light an uncomfortable reality for any major platform: Changing the logo or the URL is not enough to erase the pastWhen a brand becomes embedded in language and popular culture, it continues to generate expectations, traffic, and even business metrics, even after a radical rebranding.
Lessons for European startups and the entrepreneurial ecosystem
Although the conflict unfolds in United StatesWhat happens with X and Operation Bluebird is being closely followed from Europe and Spain, where the trademark law It has its own regulations but shares basic principles with the US system, especially regarding effective use and the risk of confusion.
For European tech startups, the main lesson is that a rebranding process must be accompanied by a clear legal strategyWhether or not to maintain a previous trademark, retain redirected domains, allow or disallow the colloquial use of a historical name… all of this can have legal implications if, later on, another party tries to register it.
It also becomes clear that trying to "take advantage" of a supposed gap in the protection of a well-known brand can lead to direct clash with large companies...with the resulting costs in lawyers, time, and reputation. In sectors where intangible assets are as important as the product itself, every move regarding names and logos must be calculated down to the last detail.
At the same time, the case reminds European entrepreneurs that any attempt to relaunch brands with a strong nostalgic component—something common in technology, video games, or social media—requires a thorough due diligence about who actually holds the rights, what the current level of use is, and how the public perceives that distinctive sign.
The dispute between X Corp. and Operation Bluebird illustrates how the symbolic weight of TwitterFar from disappearing with the birth of X, the name has become the center of a legal battle for control of a brand that continues to generate traffic, interest, and promises for the future. What the courts and regulators decide will determine how far startups can go when trying to resurrect a brand that, for its former owner, never truly died.