X Corp. has launched a federal lawsuit to prevent a startup from seizing the “Twitter” brand. The legal filing, submitted on December 16, 2025, targets Operation Bluebird. This Virginia-based startup recently petitioned to cancel X’s trademarks. They argue that Elon Musk abandoned the Twitter name after his 2023 rebrand to X.
The case focuses on a central question of modern business. Does a company lose its rights if it publicly “kills” a multi-billion dollar brand?
The Move to Reclaim a Discarded Brand
Operation Bluebird is led by a team of legal experts. One key figure is Stephen Coates. He previously served as Twitter’s associate director of trademarks. His involvement brings unique expertise to the challenge.
The startup believes X Corp. has legally abandoned its legacy. Under U.S. law, a trademark is abandoned if use is discontinued with no intent to resume. Operation Bluebird points to Musk’s 2023 statement as evidence. At the time, Musk posted that the company would “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”
The startup intends to launch a new social network at “twitter.new”. They have already invited users to reserve their old handles. Their website reports that over 145,000 people have signed up. They aim to restore the “town square” experience they feel was lost during the transition to X.
X Corp. Defense Strategy
X Corp. responded with a lawsuit in a Delaware federal court. The company asserts that the Twitter brand is still “alive and well.” They argue the brand is “not ripe for the picking.” X Corp. accuses the startup of a “brazen attempt to steal” its property.
The defense for X Corp. rests on three key points:
- Direct Traffic: Millions of users still visit
twitter.com, which currently redirects to X. - Cultural Use: The public and businesses still use terms like “Twitter” and “tweets” daily.
- Active Ownership: X Corp. claims it still enforces these trademarks in business contracts.
“A rebrand is not an abandonment of trademark rights,” the lawsuit states. X Corp. is seeking monetary damages. They also want a court order to stop the startup from using any Twitter-related branding.
Legal Precedents and Challenges
Legal experts are watching the case with interest. It could set a new standard for corporate rebranding. Usually, companies maintain “skeleton” uses of old brands to prevent others from taking them.
However, trademark law is very specific. To keep a brand, an owner must show “bona fide use” in commerce. Operation Bluebird argues that removing the bird logo from offices and app icons proves X has stopped using the marks.
X Corp. recently updated its Terms of Service. Effective January 2026, the terms explicitly state that users have no right to use the X or Twitter names. This update appears to be a defensive move against the startup’s claims.
Consumer Confusion vs. Brand Evolution
X Corp. argues that a rival named Twitter would cause “consumer confusion.” This is a primary test in trademark law. If two different companies use the same name, the public might not know which is which. X Corp. claims this would harm its business.
Operation Bluebird counters this by citing X Corp.’s own marketing. For two years, X has told the world it is not Twitter. The startup believes the public can distinguish between the new “X” and their proposed “Twitter” revival. They plan to focus on stricter moderation and a return to the original microblogging format.
The Path Ahead
The dispute is moving through two legal channels:
- The USPTO: The trademark office will decide if the marks should be canceled based on non-use.
- Federal Court: The Delaware court will rule on whether the startup’s actions infringe on X’s current rights.
If X Corp. loses, it would be a major blow. The Twitter name still carries immense global recognition. For now, the “blue bird” is at the center of a high-stakes legal tug-of-war. X Corp. wants to keep the brand locked away. Operation Bluebird is fighting to set it free.
