According to TechCrunch, Elon Musk’s X has updated its Terms of Service and filed a legal countersuit to assert its ongoing claim to the “Twitter” trademark. This move is a direct response to a petition filed on December 2, 2024, by a Virginia-based startup called Operation Bluebird, which argued X had abandoned the brand by renaming the service. Operation Bluebird, run by lawyers including former Twitter trademark attorney Stephen Coates, cited Musk’s July 23, 2023, post about bidding “adieu to the twitter brand” as evidence. X’s updated terms, effective January 15, 2026, now explicitly forbid unauthorized use of both the “X” and “Twitter” names and trademarks, a clause that previously only mentioned X. The startup has been collecting sign-ups at a site called Twitter.new, but their stated goal of launching a rival network is seen as dubious, with the real aim likely being to acquire the valuable trademark itself.
The Legal Blitz
So here’s the thing: you can’t just declare a brand dead and expect everyone to agree. Operation Bluebird’s legal play was actually pretty clever. They saw an opening—a very public, very definitive statement from the owner himself about killing the Twitter brand—and they pounced. It’s the kind of argument that could theoretically work in trademark law, where “abandonment” is a real thing. But X isn’t playing. Their countersuit, which you can read here, is the nuclear option. They’re not just updating some fine print; they’re going to court to say, “No, we still own this, exclusively.” And let’s be honest, having a former Twitter trademark lawyer on the other side probably made this feel extra personal for X’s legal team.
Why The Name Still Matters
Look, everyone still calls it Twitter. “I posted a tweet on X” sounds wrong. It just does. Musk might want to build an “everything app,” but in the public consciousness, this thing is Twitter. And that’s precisely why this trademark has immense residual value. For X, it’s about controlling the narrative and the legacy. They can’t have some other company, even a seemingly flimsy one, legally operating a service called “Twitter.” It would create endless confusion. But there’s another angle, right? By putting it in the Terms of Service, they’re sending a message to every developer, advertiser, and partner: even the ghost of the old brand is our property. Don’t get any ideas.
A Shakedown Or A Real Threat?
Let’s be skeptical for a second. Two lawyers, one of whom used to work on trademarks *at Twitter*, file a speculative application. They set up a landing page. Their entire business plan seems to be “maybe X will pay us to go away.” This has all the hallmarks of a strategic shakedown. They probably aren’t building the next great social network. They’re betting that the cost and embarrassment of a legal fight—and the potential of someone else owning the word “Twitter”—is worth more to X than a settlement. And you know what? They might be right. X’s aggressive response shows they’re taking it seriously, which means the startup’s leverage just went up. It’s a high-stakes game of legal chicken.
The Impossible Rebrand
Basically, this whole saga underscores one brutal truth: rebranding one of the world’s most iconic digital platforms is nearly impossible. You can change the logo, you can change the corporate name, but you can’t change the cultural lexicon. The updated terms, with their effective date way out in 2026, are an admission of that. They’re planning for a long, long tail where they have to legally protect a name they publicly retired. It’s a messy, expensive, and totally self-inflicted problem. And it raises a fun question: if you have to fight this hard to keep a name you supposedly didn’t want, did you make a huge mistake ditching it in the first place? The legal filings suggest the answer is a lot more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no.”
