From Twitter to X: A Radical Rebrand
Elon Musk acquired Twitter in the fall of 2022 for roughly $44 billion after months of legal and financial drama. What followed were turbulent months: mass layoffs, frequent policy changes, advertiser pullbacks, and growing criticism of Musk’s management style. User trust eroded, and many prominent voices migrated to alternative platforms such as Mastodon, Bluesky, and later Meta’s Threads.
In July 2023, Musk made his most dramatic move yet. Twitter was officially renamed “X,” the iconic blue bird logo was removed, and references to “tweets” were replaced with more generic terminology like “posts.” Musk himself declared that the platform would soon “bid adieu to the Twitter brand,” reinforcing the impression that the company was deliberately closing the chapter on its past.
From a branding perspective, the shift was clear and uncompromising. But from a legal standpoint, the situation was far more complex.
A Startup Sees an Opening
Seeing what appeared to be a complete abandonment of the Twitter name, a startup called Operation Bluebird petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to revoke X’s trademark rights to “Twitter” and “Tweet.”
Their argument was straightforward: trademark law requires active use. Since X had removed the Twitter name, logo, and terminology from its platform and public-facing materials, the company had effectively stopped using the marks in commerce. Under U.S. law, nonuse for an extended period, typically three consecutive years, can create a presumption of abandonment.
The company reportedly plans to launch a new platform under the domain “twitter.new,” positioning it as a “new Twitter” and a public digital marketplace. To do so, it would need the very trademarks that made the original platform famous.
X Strikes Back
Just days after the petition became public, X moved decisively. The company filed a lawsuit in Delaware, accusing Operation Bluebird of attempting to “steal the world-famous Twitter brand.” In its court filings, X insists that the Twitter trademark, the Tweet trademark, and the blue bird logo remain valid, enforceable, and legally protected intellectual property.
The lawsuit describes the startup’s actions as unlawful and misleading, arguing that a corporate rebrand does not equal abandonment of trademark rights. X also pointed to real-world evidence that the Twitter brand is still very much alive in the minds of users.
According to the company, more than four million people still access the service every day via the URL twitter.com. Around the world, users continue to refer to the platform as “Twitter” and to posts as “tweets,” regardless of the official name change. In other words, public usage never truly stopped.
Perhaps most tellingly, X quietly updated its terms of service. Where earlier versions had removed references to Twitter and Tweet entirely, the revised document now explicitly states that X retains rights to those marks. The terms now state:
"Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the X name or Twitter name or any of the X or Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, other distinctive brand features, or other proprietary rights, and you may not do so without our express written consent."
How Long Can X Hold On to Twitter?
Under U.S. trademark law, rights are based primarily on use, not registration alone. A company must actively use a trademark in commerce to maintain exclusive rights. However, “use” is interpreted broadly. It does not always require prominent branding or front-and-center marketing.
Abandonment requires both nonuse and intent not to resume use. Even if a mark is temporarily sidelined, a company can retain its rights if it demonstrates a clear intention to bring the mark back or continue exploiting its goodwill in some form.
In the case of Twitter trademarks, several factors are working in the X’s favor:
Residual use: The continued operation of twitter.com is significant. Courts have previously ruled that legacy domains and backend usage can help establish ongoing use.
Public association: If consumers still overwhelmingly associate “Twitter” with X, that recognition strengthens the argument that the mark retains commercial value and relevance.
Defensive intent: X’s lawsuit, updated terms of service, and explicit assertions of ownership all signal a clear intent not to abandon the marks.
Twitter may no longer exist as a brand on paper, but in the collective consciousness of millions of users, it is far from gone. Whether X ultimately continues to embrace, or merely defend, the Twitter name remains to be seen. What is clear is that, at least for now, the fight for Twitter is not over.
