New Twitter launches, says Musk’s X gave up the name
Operation Bluebird, a Virginia startup, has launched Twitter.now while arguing that Elon Musk’s X Corp abandoned the Twitter name, bird logo and related trademarks after rebranding Twitter as X. The move escalates an ongoing legal dispute, as X has sought to stop the launch but the judge has not yet issued a written ruling on its request for an injunction.
The new service currently has only hundreds of users and resembles the previous Twitter, including replies and retweets, but says it is unaffiliated with X. It also uses a Gemini-based automated fact-checking system, Vera, on every post; Operation Bluebird says this supports a safer public forum, while a trademark lawyer says its legal argument may be viable but is far from certain and expects X to respond strongly.
- Twitter.now launches amid an unresolved trademark dispute with X.
- Startup says X abandoned the Twitter brand after its rebrand.
- New platform includes automated real-time fact-checking.
New here? Start with this
Twitter was a social media service where people posted short messages and responded to one another. In 2023, owner Elon Musk changed its name to X, replacing its familiar bird logo; the company behind the service is X Corp.
Operation Bluebird is a Virginia startup seeking to use the Twitter name for a new service. Its claim that X gave up rights to the name and logo is disputed, and whether a trademark has been abandoned depends on the circumstances and the law.
The dispute matters because trademarks help identify who provides a service and can prevent confusingly similar names. A court’s decision could affect whether the new service can continue using Twitter and how the old brand is treated.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
X Corp's complete operational abandonment of the Twitter brand—discontinuing operations, retiring the bird logo, and investing all resources into X—should constitute effective abandonment of the trademark. The trademark system serves to protect consumer interests and prevent confusion, neither of which apply when the original operator has entirely retired the brand and demonstrates no intention to resurrect it. Permitting X to monopolise an unused, dormant mark whilst others revive the original brand undermines rather than serves the system's core purpose.
The case against
Rebranding does not automatically extinguish trademark rights; X Corp legally owns Twitter trademarks through USPTO registration regardless of operational decisions. Trademark abandonment under law requires specific conditions—typically years of non-use paired with intent not to resume—which a strategic rebrand cannot unilaterally trigger. X's active court enforcement of the trademark directly negates abandonment claims, and companies routinely retain valuable trademark portfolios even when particular marks are operationally retired from current business activities.