TECHNOLOGY

How to Reclaim an Abandoned Brand: Inside Operation Bluebird's Bid to Revive Twitter

December 11, 2025 · Greyson Tighe

🔊 Audio version of this article

Speed 1.0×

Stopped.

When Elon Musk scrapped the Twitter name and blue bird in favor of X, he presented it as a fresh start: new app, new logo, new direction. In practice, he wiped one of the most recognizable brands in tech off the map.^[1]Reuters, July 23 2023: Musk announces that Twitter will rebrand to "X" and replace the blue bird logo.

Musk has said he bought Twitter to fight what he calls the "woke mind virus" and to turn the platform into a "free speech" stronghold. In that story, the old Twitter identity belonged to his political enemies. Renaming the service, retiring the bird, and banishing the word "tweet" were all part of clearing that identity out of the way.^[2]The Telegraph: reports Musk citing hatred of the "woke mind virus" as a driver of his Twitter takeover.^[3]Reuters: quotes Musk calling free speech "the bedrock of a functioning democracy" and describing Twitter as a "digital town square" when announcing the $44 billion deal.

Now that choice is colliding with trademark law.

A small Virginia startup called Operation Bluebird has asked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel X Corp.'s "Twitter" and "Tweet" trademarks on the ground that Musk's company has abandoned them. At the same time, the startup has filed its own trademark application for "Twitter" and plans to use the name on a new social network called Twitter.new.^[4]Reuters: details Operation Bluebird's petition to cancel X Corp.'s "TWITTER" and "TWEET" registrations as abandoned, and its own application to register "TWITTER".^[5]The Verge: explains Operation Bluebird's plan to launch a Twitter-like service at Twitter.new using the "TWITTER" mark.

If the case goes anywhere, it will test a blunt question: after you publicly erase a brand at this scale, do you still get to keep everyone else from using the name?

Who is Operation Bluebird?

Operation Bluebird is not a fan project or a memorial site. It is a for-profit startup run by lawyers who know Twitter's intellectual property from the inside.^[6]The Verge: describes Operation Bluebird as a lawyer-led startup focused on Twitter's former trademarks.

The company is based in Virginia. Its leadership includes trademark attorneys such as Michael Peroff and Stephen Coates. Coates previously worked at Twitter as associate director for trademarks, domain names, and marketing, which means he had direct responsibility for the portfolio of registrations that protected the Twitter name and related marks.^[7]Reuters: identifies Operation Bluebird as a Virginia-based company challenging X over the "TWITTER" and "TWEET" marks.^[8]The Verge: notes that Operation Bluebird's leaders include trademark lawyers Michael Peroff and former Twitter trademark counsel Stephen Coates.

From that position, Operation Bluebird is doing two things at once. It has filed a petition at the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board seeking to cancel X Corp.'s U.S. registrations for "TWITTER" and "TWEET," arguing that the marks have been legally abandoned. And it has filed a new application to register "TWITTER" for its own service, Twitter.new, which it pitches as a restoration of the classic Twitter experience with updated tools for moderation and fact-checking.^[9]USPTO TTABVUE: docket for Operation Bluebird's cancellation proceeding against X Corp.'s "TWITTER" and "TWEET" registrations.^[10]USPTO TSDR: Operation Bluebird's application to register "TWITTER" for online social networking services.^[11]The Verge: reports that Twitter.new is pitched as a Twitter-like service with stronger moderation and fact-checking tools.

On the surface, a small startup is trying to pry a legacy brand away from a platform owned by one of the richest people on earth. Legally, it is making a narrower claim: that Musk's rebrand did more than rename Twitter. It ended Twitter, at least as a trademark.

How Musk erased Twitter but kept the registrations

To understand why that matters, you have to look at what actually happened to the Twitter identity after Musk bought the company.

He closed the acquisition in late 2022, paying about $44 billion.^[12]Reuters: confirms Musk's $44 billion acquisition of Twitter, completed in late October 2022. Less than a year later, in July 2023, he announced that the service would be renamed X and posted that the company would "bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds." The familiar blue bird logo disappeared from the app, the website, and the San Francisco headquarters. The service name changed in app stores and on the company website. The verbs and nouns that defined the culture—Twitter, tweet, retweet—were replaced with more generic language about posts.^[13]Reuters: quotes Musk's "bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds" post and describes the rollout of the X name and logo.^[14]Wikipedia: timeline of the rebrand from Twitter to "X", including logo changes and retirement of the bird icon and "tweet" terminology by 2024.

Over the following months, the technical integration followed the symbolic one. Users were pushed toward x.com as the primary domain, with twitter.com increasingly treated as a legacy address that redirected into the new environment. Marketing, press communication, commercial usage and product branding all revolved around X rather than Twitter.^[15]Reuters: notes that Musk shifted the main address from twitter.com to x.com and removed most visible Twitter branding.^[16]Lifewire: explains how twitter.com now redirects into X and how the service is presented under the X brand.

What Musk did not do was voluntarily give up the underlying registrations. On USPTO records, X Corp. is still the owner of federal registrations for "TWITTER" and "TWEET," and those registrations have been maintained and renewed. On paper, the marks remain live. In the actual product and its branding, the company has done everything possible to make them disappear.^[17]Reuters: reports that X Corp. still holds active U.S. registrations for "TWITTER" and "TWEET" and renewed them in 2023 despite the rebrand.^[18]Gerben Law analysis: summarizes the status of the "TWITTER" and "TWEET" registrations and explains how they have been maintained.

The gap between those two realities is where Operation Bluebird is focusing its attack.

A political purge in the shape of a rebrand

Musk has never hidden that his acquisition of Twitter was ideological. He has said directly that the purchase was motivated by a desire to defeat the "woke mind virus," and he has repeatedly framed pre-Musk Twitter as a captured institution aligned with liberal elites, legacy media, and the political establishment.^[19]The Telegraph: reports Musk saying that hatred of the "woke mind virus" helped drive his decision to buy Twitter.^[20]Wikipedia: notes that Musk stated his goal with the acquisition was to promote "free speech" on the platform.

In that narrative, the old Twitter brand is not neutral. It represents the era when Donald Trump was banned, when COVID and election misinformation faced more aggressive moderation, and when the company adopted and enforced more robust policies on harassment and hate speech.^[21]Twitter company blog (Jan. 8 2021): announces the permanent suspension of Donald Trump's account after the January 6 attack.^[22]Twitter policy updates: outline enforcement of COVID-19 misinformation rules.^[23]Twitter elections blog: describes labels, restrictions, and other measures on election misinformation in 2020.

The X rebrand fits neatly into that story. It draws a line between an old, supposedly "woke" platform and a new "free speech" space where many previously banned far-right figures have been reinstated and enforcement has been relaxed. The bird, the word "Twitter," and even the term "tweet" are treated as artifacts of a defeated regime. Stripping them away signals that the regime is gone.^[24]PBS NewsHour: documents Musk's use of X to amplify right-wing figures and his loosening of moderation rules.^[25]AlgorithmWatch & DFRLab, "The Musk Effect": finds that X's engagement dynamics disproportionately boost far-right content after Musk's takeover.

What Operation Bluebird is doing is asking the trademark system to take that performance seriously. If the owner of a mark tells the world he has said goodbye to the brand and painstakingly scrubs it from the marketplace, how much weight should that have when he later claims the mark is still in use?

What "abandoning" a trademark actually means

Under U.S. law, trademarks are not just pieces of paper; they are supposed to reflect real use in commerce and an intent to keep using the mark -- putting the name on the product or service you are actually offering, on the app listing in the store, on the website where people sign up, and in the marketing that reaches customers. The mark you register is expected to match the brand the public actually sees.^[26]USPTO "Trademark Basics": explains that registration is tied to actual use of a mark in commerce on goods or services.

Abandonment comes into play when that link between paper and reality breaks. A mark is presumed abandoned if it is not used in commerce for three consecutive years. Even before that, a mark can be found abandoned if the owner stops using it and has no intention to resume use. Courts look at actual behavior and at what the owner says and does about their plans for the brand.^[27]15 U.S.C. § 1127: defines "abandonment" of a mark and states that nonuse for 3 consecutive years is prima facie evidence of abandonment.^[28]Bitlaw overview: discusses trademark abandonment, nonuse, and intent to resume use under U.S. law.

Operation Bluebird's petition tries to fit the Twitter situation into that framework. It argues that X Corp. has stopped using "Twitter" and "Tweet" as brands in the ordinary sense: the names do not appear on the app icon, the primary domain, or external marketing. The platform is offered to the public under the X name, and Musk has personally announced that the Twitter brand is gone. Those are presented as evidence of both discontinued use and a lack of intent to resume.^[29]Reuters: summarizes Operation Bluebird's argument that X no longer uses "TWITTER" or "TWEET" as active brands.^[30]USPTO TTABVUE: petition text cites Musk's public statements about bidding "adieu" to the Twitter brand as evidence of abandonment.

The petition goes further and suggests that by continuing to file maintenance documents with the USPTO that treat "TWITTER" and "TWEET" as active marks in use, X Corp. is making statements that no longer match its actual conduct. That is a serious allegation if a tribunal decides that the factual record supports it.^[31]Gerben Law analysis: notes that X filed maintenance and renewal documents for the "TWITTER" marks while simultaneously rebranding the service as X.

The core of the argument is simple: in Bluebird's telling, you cannot convincingly tell the world you have retired a brand and then use that retired brand on a government form as a barrier to competitors.

How X Corp. can push back

None of this guarantees that Operation Bluebird will win. Trademark law gives X Corp. several avenues to defend its registrations.

One of them is the idea of residual goodwill. Even if the word "Twitter" has been driven out of official branding, it still lives in the public's mind as the name of the service Musk bought. Courts often treat that lingering recognition as an asset. If the consuming public still associates "Twitter" with the same underlying service, X Corp. can argue that the mark remains distinctive and that goodwill still attaches to it.^[32]KMK Law: explains how residual goodwill can preserve trademark rights even after visible use is reduced.

Another avenue is to point to any remaining use, even if it is not front-and-center. If "Twitter" appears in legacy interfaces, legal disclaimers, contractual documents, or certain communications, X Corp. can argue that the mark continues to function in commerce in a more limited way. The company does not need to be running national ad campaigns under the Twitter name to claim that some level of use persists.^[33]Gerben Law: notes that even limited or residual uses of a mark can complicate an abandonment claim.

Timing also matters. Musk's rebrand began in mid-2023. Operation Bluebird's petition was filed in December 2025. That is shorter than the three-year period that automatically raises a presumption of abandonment. Bluebird therefore has to rely more heavily on the argument about expressed intent and overall conduct, rather than simply pointing to a long period of non-use.^[34]USPTO TTABVUE: shows the December 2025 filing date for Operation Bluebird's cancellation petition.^[35]15 U.S.C. § 1127: sets out the three-year nonuse presumption for abandonment.

These questions are fact-intensive and context-dependent. How much weight will a tribunal give to Musk's "bid adieu" statement? How much visible use is enough to keep a mark alive? Does a complete public rebrand outweigh residual references and public memory? Those are not issues the USPTO can resolve quickly or mechanically.^[36]Kilpatrick Townsend overview: emphasizes that TTAB abandonment disputes are highly fact-specific and turn on detailed evidence of use and intent.

What happens next

Procedurally, the dispute is still in its early stages.

The petition to cancel X Corp.'s Twitter-related registrations is now before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. X Corp. has a deadline, reported as running into early 2026, to file an answer. That filing will show whether the company intends to mount a full defense of the old marks or treat them as peripheral now that X is firmly established as the primary brand.^[37]Reuters: notes that X has until early 2026 to respond to Operation Bluebird's petition at the TTAB.

If X chooses to fight aggressively, the case could move into discovery, where both sides exchange evidence and probe the real extent of continued use and intent. That process can be lengthy, and it can spill into federal court if either party seeks broader relief.^[38]USPTO TTAB practice guide: explains that cancellation proceedings include discovery phases.^[39]USPTO guidance: TTAB decisions can be appealed to the Federal Circuit or reviewed via a civil action in federal district court.

If X opts for a more limited response, it might still be able to delay or complicate any effort by Operation Bluebird to gain clear rights to the Twitter name. Even a half-hearted defense consumes time and resources, and it signals to other potential claimants that the mark will not be surrendered without a contest.

Theoretically, X could also decide that the registrations are more trouble than they are worth and stop defending them, especially if the company believes the X brand is strong enough on its own. In that scenario, the Twitter registrations could eventually be cancelled, and the question would shift to whether anyone else can safely build a business under the name without running into other forms of risk.

Commentators who follow trademark law have been cautious in their early assessments. They tend to describe Operation Bluebird's position as an unusually aggressive attempt to test the consequences of Musk's rebrand, rather than a slam-dunk case for either side, and they note that the dispute could drag on for years.^[40]Reuters: quotes trademark attorney Josh Gerben calling the case an "interesting test" for X and warning that the outcome is uncertain.^[41]PatentLawIP commentary: characterizes Operation Bluebird's strategy as aggressive but legally plausible, with a potentially lengthy timeline.