X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc.: When Is a Trademark Truly Abandoned?

Rebranding is serious business. The associated risks and costs are often substantial, and the decision to overhaul marketplace identity should never be taken lightly. Organizations must consider the potential loss of established goodwill, particularly during the period of transition from old to new. Consumer perception of the brand may change, and brand awareness may falter. A new trademark must be cleared, and consumers must be educated to look for the new brand name, logo, or slogan. To maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of a rebrand, companies often devote a significant amount of effort and resources to the creation and maintenance of the new brand. However, as demonstrated by the recent memorandum opinion in X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc., No. 25-1510-CFC (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2026), there are additional risks associated with rebranding that may not be immediately apparent. Notably, entities must be conscious of what constitutes trademark abandonment to prevent others from attempting to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the old brand.

In 2006, Twitter, Inc. launched the social media internet platform known as Twitter. Between 2006 and 2023, millions of people accessed Twitter through the Internet website twitter.com, short message service, and mobile-device application software to share and comment on short messages known as “tweets.”[1] Twitter, Inc. filed 13 separate trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Eight of these applications featured the term “TWITTER,” either by itself or in connection with additional wording (the “TWITTER-formative marks”). Two applications featured the term “TWEET.” The remaining three applications featured a design mark known as the Twitter Bird logo.[2]

In March 2023, X Corp. acquired Twitter, Inc.’s assets, including the referenced 13 trademarks.[3] X Corp. then rebranded the Twitter platform to “X” in July 2023 and adopted a stylized version of the letter X as the platform’s new mark.[4] As part of the rebrand, X Corp. removed from the platform the Twitter Bird logo design and all references to the terms “Twitter” and “Tweet.”[5]

U.S. Registration No. 5001027

U.S. Registration No. 8368938

In December 2025, Operation Bluebird, Inc. (Bluebird) filed two intent-to-use trademark applications with the USPTO to register the marks “TWITTER” and “TWEET,” and announced its intent to launch a social networking platform called “twitter.new.”[6] The backdrop of the twitter.new home page featured the same sky-blue color of twitter.com’s old backdrop and the Twitter Bird logo. By December 22, 2025, over 140,000 people had reserved usernames on the platform.[7]

X Corp. sued Bluebird for alleged trademark infringement and trademark dilution, among other claims.[8] X Corp. then filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Bluebird from using the TWITTER marks referenced above until the case is resolved and argued that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its infringement and dilution claims.[9] In response, Bluebird argued that X Corp. cannot prevail on such claims because X Corp. deliberately abandoned and thus no longer owns any rights in the TWITTER marks.[10]

Trademark Abandonment

The Lanham Act states that a mark shall be deemed “abandoned” when use of the mark has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use.[11] Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Accordingly, the Court applied a two-part inquiry to determine whether X Corp. abandoned its TWITTER marks:

1. Has the mark’s owner discontinued bona fide use of the mark?; and
2. Does the owner intend not to resume bona fide use of the mark?[12]

In analyzing X Corp.’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court framed the relevant question as “whether Bluebird has shown that it is likely to succeed in strictly proving at trial that X Corp. does not use and intends not to resume using the TWITTER marks.”[13]

The TWITTER-formative Marks

With respect to the eight TWITTER-formative marks, the Court determined that Bluebird had not made that showing. The Court focused on the following evidence of record: (1) language found in X Corp.’s online listing for its downloadable software application that stated “Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter)”; (2) testimony from a Legal Director at X Corp. that indicated the listing language was deliberately added to ensure consumers who were searching for the Twitter application would understand that X Corp.’s product was one and the same; and (3) survey evidence demonstrating that the TWITTER mark is “well-known, commercially strong, and famous among the general consuming public in the United States.”[14] The Court found that X Corp.’s use of the wording “formerly Twitter” in a listing designed to advertise and promote the X platform constituted evidence of bona fide use of the TWITTER-formative marks.[15]

The TWEET and Twitter Bird Logo Marks

With respect to the marks featuring the term TWEET or the Twitter Bird logo, however, the Court determined that Bluebird is likely to succeed in strictly proving that X Corp. has discontinued bona fide use of the marks.[16] Neither the term “TWEET” or the Twitter Bird logo appear in the listing of the X app on the Apple App Store, and X Corp. conceded that these marks are nowhere to be found on X Corp.’s home page.[17] The Court reviewed other evidence provided by X Corp. to prove use of such marks, such as an email to solicit the services of a potential vendor, older webpage materials, and legacy (“inactive”) social media accounts bearing the marks.[18] However, the Court determined X Corp.’s evidence to be “remnants of prior use” that did not show that X Corp. is “currently engaged in the bona fide use” of the relevant marks.[19]

The Court further determined that Bluebird is likely to succeed in proving that X Corp. has no intent to resume use of the TWEET or Twitter Bird logo marks and thus is likely to strictly prove abandonment of such marks.[20] In reaching its conclusion, the Court referenced statements made by Elon Musk, the owner of X Corp., indicating that his intention was to “cut[] the Twitter logo off the building with blow torches.”[21] Per the Court’s opinion, “Musk’s pronouncements and X Corp.’s rebranding of the Twitter platform as X provide compelling evidence that X Corp. harbors an intent not to resume use of the Tweet mark and Bird logo.”[22]

Rebranding Considerations

Trademark abandonment is a potential consequence of any rebranding exercise. However, an entity may employ several strategies to protect the goodwill associated with its “old” and “new” brands. As demonstrated by the opinion in X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc., use of the term “formerly” in advertising is a key factor in determining whether an entity has abandoned its mark. Even though it may be clear to consumers that the relevant goods or services are now being provided under a new mark, a reference to the previous source identifier in promotions for the new brand may be sufficient to defeat the defense of abandonment.[23] This also helps entities to capitalize on and transfer the goodwill established by the prior mark to the new mark.

However, if an entity is unable to demonstrate any use or reference to the “old” brand in current advertising or marketing materials, there is a risk of trademark abandonment. A third party may attempt to capitalize on the goodwill associated with the former mark by providing similar goods or services under such a mark, and it may be difficult for the original mark owner to succeed in proving trademark infringement or dilution. Therefore, before proceeding with a rebrand, it is important to consult with a trademark attorney that can advise on potential risks, develop strategies to protect the established goodwill of the brand, and ensure a smooth transition from old to new.

[1] X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc., No. 25-1510-CFC, slip op. at 2-3 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2026).

[2]Id.

[3]Id.

[4]Id. at 4.

[5]Id.

[6]Id. at 5.

[7]Id. at 6.

[8]Id. at 2. X Corp. sued Bluebird for alleged trademark infringement, counterfeiting, false designation of origin and unfair competition, trademark dilution, and copyright infringement in violation of federal law and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, and trademark dilution in violation of Delaware law.

[9]Id. at 7.

[10]Id. at 8.

[11]15 U.S.C. § 1127.

[12]X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc., No. 25-1510-CFC, slip op. at 9 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2026).

[13]Id. at 10.

[14]Id. at 10-11.

[15]Id. at 11.

[16]Id. at 15.

[17]Id.

[18]Id. at 20.

[19]Id. at 19-20.

[20]Id. at 24-25.

[21]Id. at 4, 18, and 24.

[22]Id. at 24.

[23]See, e.g., Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. Servs., 758 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2014); Marks Org., Inc. v. Joles, 784 F. Supp. 2d 322, 328 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Perry v. H.J. Heinz Co. Brands, L.L.C., 994 F.3d 466, 475 (5th Cir. 2021).