According to 9to5Mac, in response to a trademark petition filed just a few days ago by a Virginia-based startup called Operation Bluebird, X Corp. has updated its Terms of Service today. Operation Bluebird asked the US Patent and Trademark Office to cancel X’s “Twitter” and “Tweet” trademarks, arguing the company had abandoned the storied brand. The petition claimed that with the rebrand to X, the Twitter bird was “grounded” and the marks were eradicated from products and marketing. Specialists speaking to Ars Technica suggested Operation Bluebird had a viable case. X’s updated ToS now explicitly states that no one has the right to use the “Twitter name” or its trademarks without the company’s express written consent. Whether this legal maneuver works is now up to the USPTO to decide.
A classic case of closing the barn door
Here’s the thing: this is a pretty reactive, almost panicky move from X. The petition was filed, legal experts said it looked strong, and then X rushes to update its Terms of Service. It feels less like a strategic defense and more like someone realizing they left the back door wide open. I mean, you’d think a company that spent $44 billion on an asset would have a tighter grip on its most valuable intellectual property, right? But the chaotic rebrand from Twitter to X, where the old name and bird logo were aggressively scrubbed, basically created this opening. They did everything but formally announce they were ditching the trademark.
Why this is still an uphill battle
So, will slapping a line in the ToS be enough? I’m skeptical. Trademark law is about consistent, ongoing use in commerce to identify your goods and services. For months, Elon Musk and X have been very publicly killing “Twitter.” They changed the app name, the domain, the signage at headquarters—the whole nine yards. The legal standard isn’t just about what you *say* you own in a legal document you update after the fact; it’s about what you actually *do* in the marketplace. Operation Bluebird’s argument is that X’s actions show abandonment. A footnote in the ToS might be seen as too little, too late, a last-ditch effort to create a paper trail that doesn’t match reality. The USPTO will look at the whole picture.
What’s really at stake here?
Look, this isn’t just about pride or nostalgia. Trademarks are business assets. If X loses the “Twitter” and “Tweet” marks, it opens the door for others to use them. Imagine a competitor launching a social network called “Twitter” or using “Tweet” as a verb. It would be a massive brand confusion headache. More cynically, it could also be a financial play by Operation Bluebird—file a disruptive petition, maybe force a settlement. For X, it’s another unforced error in a long line of them, turning what should have been a controlled transition into a potential legal forfeiture. They wanted to burn the past, but they might have accidentally torched a billion-dollar brand in the process. And now they’re trying to put it out with a terms-of-service update.
