Operation Bluebird launches paid Twitter-branded social network
Startup Operation Bluebird has launched twitter.now, a paid social network using the former Twitter name, shortly after X secured action against third-party services including Nitter. The move matters because X Corp is still contesting Operation Bluebird’s attempt to claim the Twitter trademark, setting up a further legal dispute over branding Elon Musk abandoned when he renamed Twitter as X.
The new platform is not affiliated with X and does not provide access to X content; users pay $20 for founder-level early access or $40 for a “Fighter” tier with a profile badge. Operation Bluebird says charging users helps deter bots and avoid reliance on advertising, while promoting user-controlled feeds and post “trust signals”. Its trademark case, filed last year on the basis that Twitter had been abandoned, remains unresolved, although X maintains it exclusively owns the name.
- A paid platform has launched using the disputed Twitter brand.
- X Corp is still contesting ownership of the Twitter trademark.
- twitter.now does not host or display X content.
New here? Start with this
Twitter was the name of a social network launched in 2006. In 2022, Elon Musk bought the company and later renamed it X; X Corp is the company that now operates that service.
Operation Bluebird is a separate startup seeking rights to the Twitter name, arguing that it was abandoned after the rebrand. X Corp disputes that claim, and the trademark case has not been resolved. The dispute matters because it will determine who can use the name for a social network.
A trademark gives its owner legal rights over a name or symbol in particular commercial uses. A decision in this case could affect how the former Twitter brand is used, while the new service’s relationship to the old platform is also relevant to readers: it is not affiliated with X and does not provide access to X’s content.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Operation Bluebird can argue that X stopped using the Twitter name when it rebranded, so seeking to use the mark is a legitimate attempt to build a distinct service around a name it believes was abandoned. A paid model could help limit bots and reduce dependence on advertising, while user-controlled feeds and trust signals offer a different approach to social networking.
The case against
X can argue that rebranding its service did not surrender its rights to the Twitter trademark, and that continued public recognition of the name makes unauthorised use liable to confuse users about affiliation. It may also contend that launching a paid service under a disputed brand risks capitalising on a reputation X built, before the ownership question has been resolved.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Register as “Nitter might be no more, but Twitter is back (sort of)”.