According to Gizmodo, a startup called Operation Bluebird filed a petition this week with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. They want to cancel X Corp.’s trademarks on the words “Twitter” and “tweet.” Their legal argument is that Elon Musk has abandoned the brand, pointing to his public statement in July 2023 about bidding “adieu to the twitter brand.” The founders told Ars Technica they plan to launch a Twitter alternative called Twitter.new if they get the name, with a working prototype and a sign-up page already live. They expect to launch the platform late next year, and this trademark battle will decide what they can call it.
Legal uphill battle
So, can they actually do this? The legal concept here is trademark abandonment. Basically, if a company stops using a mark with no intention to resume, it can be considered abandoned. Operation Bluebird’s petition, which you can read here, leans heavily on Musk’s own words and the systematic removal of birds and “Twitter” from the app formerly known as Twitter. But here’s the thing: trademark law is notoriously fuzzy on this. A 2021 law review paper even called the doctrine “largely ignored” and case law “fragmented.” Intentional abandonment is a high bar to clear. Musk’s team will surely argue the “Twitter” name is still deeply associated with X in the public mind, which is a key function of a trademark. This is a classic David vs. Goliath move, and those don’t often end well for David.
Why bother with the name?
Look, the founders of Operation Bluebird aren’t naive. They know the power of branding. In a crowded field of X alternatives—Bluesky, Threads, Mastodon—having the actual, original “Twitter” name would be a massive shortcut. Everyone still calls it Twitter anyway! Their planned site, Twitter.new, is banking entirely on that ingrained cultural recognition. It’s a clever, if incredibly long-shot, strategy. Instead of building a brand from scratch, they’re trying to legally salvage the one that’s already etched into the internet’s collective consciousness. The question is, does that residual public use help or hurt their case? You could argue that because people still say “tweet,” the mark isn’t truly abandoned. But you could also argue that Musk’s very public disdain for the old brand shows clear intent to discard it. It’s a mess.
Musk’s own words as evidence
This might be the most fascinating part. The petition cites Elon Musk’s July 2023 tweet as a key piece of evidence. He literally said the company would “bid adieu to the twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.” In trademark law, that’s not nothing. As legal experts note, statements of intent can be crucial. Musk is often his own worst enemy in legal disputes, and this could be a prime example. He publicly declared the brand dead. Now a startup is using his own proclamation against him in a formal legal setting. The irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. But will a trademark tribunal see a tweet as a formal declaration of abandonment? That’s the billion-dollar question.
What happens next?
Don’t expect a quick resolution. These USPTO proceedings can drag on for years. X Corp. will absolutely fight this, and they have immense resources. Operation Bluebird’s entire project is essentially on hold, waiting for a legal decision on a name. I think their best-case scenario isn’t necessarily winning outright, but perhaps forcing a settlement or drawing enough attention to their alternative platform in the process. Even if they lose, the publicity from suing to take “Twitter” from Elon Musk is probably worth the filing fee. But imagine if they actually won? It would be one of the greatest branding heists in tech history. The chances are slim, but it’s a wild story that perfectly captures the chaotic, surreal afterlife of the platform we all still call Twitter.
