X has moved to shut down any assertions that it walked away from the Twitter trademark, updating its legal terms and filing a lawsuit as a U.S. startup attempts to take control of one of the most recognisable brands in tech.
On December 16, 2025, X Corp filed a lawsuit in Delaware federal court against Operation Bluebird, accusing the firm of “brazenly attempting to steal” the Twitter trademarks.
Days earlier, the company had also revised its Terms of Service to make one point explicit: Twitter is still its property.
The case centres on whether Elon Musk abandoned the Twitter brand when he rebranded the social network as X in July 2023. Operation Bluebird, a Virginia-based startup, says he did.
In a petition filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 2, the group argued that Musk’s rebrand amounted to trademark abandonment, pointing to his 2023 statement that the platform would soon “bid adieu to the twitter brand.”
X rejects that argument outright. In its court filing, the company stated: “The TWITTER brand is alive and well, owned by X Corp., and is not ripe for the picking.” It also said it continues to hold exclusive rights to the Twitter and Tweet trademarks, as well as the bluebird logo, all of which remain registered with the USPTO.
Beyond the courtroom, X has taken steps to reinforce its position in writing. Its updated Terms of Service, which take effect on January 15, 2026, now explicitly restrict the use of both X and Twitter branding. The clause reads:
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, and other proprietary rights, and you may not do so without our express written consent.
Previously, this section referred only to X. Twitter was not mentioned at all.
Operation Bluebird, meanwhile, has begun collecting sign-ups for a proposed social network through a website called Twitter.new. This is being led by two lawyers, founder Michael Peroff, based in Illinois, and Stephen Coates, who previously worked as a trademark lawyer at Twitter itself.
Given that background, many observers question whether a rival platform is really the goal. We understand that the greater prize may be the trademark itself, which still carries huge commercial value even without an active product attached to it.
That value explains the urgency of X’s response. Twitter is one of the most widely recognised names in the digital economy, with potential uses ranging from licensing to future relaunches. X appears unwilling to leave any legal gap open.
The updated legal documents also include smaller changes. X added references linked to European Union regulations and adjusted its Privacy Policy to include mentions of age assurance technology. These changes, however, are secondary to the message being sent.
X says Twitter is not history, but an asset, the trademark is still owned, still defended, and now firmly written back into the company’s legal framework.
