TWEET and the Bird Logo Apparently Enter the Public Domain, But X Maintains Its Grip on the TWITTER Mark (For Now)-X v. Project Bluebird - Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Menu
Biography
Academic Materials

Writing
Presentations
Resources

Courses

Advertising & Marketing Law
Contract Law
Copyright Law
Internet Law
IP Survey
Legal Ethics

Contact
Blogs

Tertium Quid Blog
Eric Goldman’s Personal Blog
About the Blogger

Browse: Home
» 2026
» September
» TWEET and the Bird Logo Apparently Enter the Public Domain, But X Maintains Its Grip on the TWITTER Mark (For Now)–X v. Project Bluebird

TWEET and the Bird Logo Apparently Enter the Public Domain, But X Maintains Its Grip on the TWITTER Mark (For Now)–X v. Project Bluebird
September 8, 2026 · by Eric Goldman · in Trademark

This case involves Project Bluebird, a social media service previously named “twitter.new” and renamed to tweet.app immediately after this ruling (for reasons this post makes obvious). Project Bluebird’s service is designed to reimagine the Twitter service that Musk imploded when he morphed Twitter into X. Project Bluebird claims X has abandoned the TWITTER, TWEET and Bird Logo trademarks. In 2025, Project Bluebird filed ITU applications for TWITTER and TWEET.
Citing the following evidence, the court says X hasn’t abandoned the TWITTER marks:
X Corp.’ s current listing of the X app on the Apple App Store from which users can learn about the X platform and download the platform’s app to their phones [says] “Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter), your trusted digital town square where conversations unfold in real time, and the world connects through breaking news, live events, podcasts, and everything in between.”…The listing therefore constitutes evidence of bona fide use of the Twitter-formative marks.
The court cites several cases endorsing “formerly known as” references as ongoing trademark use. The court explains:
the parenthetical identifies and distinguishes X Corp.’s platform as the Twitter platform X Corp. acquired from Twitter, Inc. and is rebranding as X. By virtue of the parenthetical, the listing is telling customers that what they knew as Twitter is now X and can be accessed by downloading the X app from the Apple App Store.
The court is right that X is using TWITTER to distinguish itself from its competitors, in the sense that consumers can identify and engage with X based on any residual goodwill they have towards Twitter. (At this point I’m still amaze any residual goodwill still exists towards X/Twitter. It’s all badwill to me). At the same time, X has made it emphatically clear that it does not intend to promote the TWITTER mark in the future other than to capture that residual goodwill. I could easily have seen the court reaching the opposite conclusion that the “formerly known as” reference isn’t actually trademark usage, at least when Musk has so publicly and prominently repudiated the mark.
I’d analogize the “formerly known as” references to a corporate webpage recounting a company’s past names. Telling the company’s history shouldn’t act as trademark usage of those legacy brands. If a corporate webpage can simpy mention deprecated brand names and thereby prevent abandonment of those marks, then the abandonment doctrine doesn’t exist any more.
In contrast, the court says the TWEET trademark and the Bird Logo are likely abandoned based on the following evidence:

“neither the Tweet mark nor the Bird logo appears in X Corp.’ s listing of the X app on the Apple App Store.”
“X Corp. conceded (eventually) at the April hearing that the Tweet mark and Bird logo are nowhere to be found on x.com’s home page.”
Some of X’s evidence was defective, such as referencing only TWITTER and not the other marks or lacking dates, which suggest they are legacy usages before Musk’s rebrand. (The court says some social media “account postings are a relic of the past”).

The court summarizes: “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.”
The court ruled on a preliminary injunction request, so it’s not the final word on the merits. Still, it seems highly likely that the TWEET term and the bird logo have been freed from X’s trademark clutches. If so, it’s nice to get some cultural assets back into the public domain (at least, until Project Bluebird tries to repropertize them) so we can tweet all we want and associate ourselves with the bird logo as we see fit. As for the TWITTER mark, X’s ongoing supervision of that mark seems dubious (consistent with Musk’s literal blowtorching of it). I’m guessing that mark will also enter the public domain soon enough, even if it should be there already.
Case Citation: X Corp. v. Project Bluebird Inc., 2026 WL 2606728 (D. Del. Sept. 3, 2026)
Share this:
Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
Email

Click to print (Opens in new window)
Print

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
Facebook

Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
LinkedIn

Click to share on X (Opens in new window)
X

Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
Tumblr

Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
Pinterest

Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
Pocket

Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
Reddit

Comments and Pings

← SAD Scheme Plaintiff Must Pay $40k to Defendant–Guangzhou Tinpod v. Schedule A Defendants

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address

Subscribe

Search on this blog

Categories

Adware/Spyware (195)

Content Regulation (1,530)

Copyright (937)

Derivative Liability (1,590)

Domain Names (172)

E-Commerce (679)

Emojis (62)

Evidence/Discovery (182)

General (187)

Internet History (263)

Licensing/Contracts (825)

Marketing (770)

Patents (108)

Privacy/Security (716)

Publicity/Privacy Rights (289)

Search Engines (617)

Spam (221)

Trade Secrets (90)

Trademark (824)

Trespass to Chattels (152)

Virtual Worlds (57)

Copyright © 2026 Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This case, X Corp. v. Project Bluebird Inc., addresses the status of trademarks associated with Twitter following its rebranding to X, specifically examining the "TWITTER," "TWEET," and Bird Logo marks. Project Bluebird, which developed a service based on the pre-rebrand iteration of the platform, claimed that X had abandoned these trademarks. The court analyzed evidence regarding X Corp.'s use of references to the former brand names and the presence of those specific marks across its platforms to determine abandonment.

The court found that X Corp.'s listing of the X application on the Apple App Store provided evidence of bona fide use of the Twitter-formative marks because the description framed X as the successor to Twitter, serving as a form of differentiation for users. The court endorsed the argument that using "formerly known as" references distinguishes the current platform from its predecessor, much like a company webpage may list past names without constituting trademark usage. This approach suggests that merely recounting a company's history does not automatically prevent the abandonment of legacy brands.

In contrast to the reasoning applied to the general branding, the court concluded that the TWEET trademark and the Bird Logo were likely abandoned. This determination was based on the evidence that neither the Tweet mark nor the Bird logo appeared in X Corp.'s listing on the Apple App Store, and X Corp. had conceded that these marks were absent from x.com’s homepage. Furthermore, some of the evidence presented by X, such as referencing only TWITTER without including the other marks or dates, was deemed defective suggesting they were legacy usages predating Musk's rebrand. The court noted that Musk's public statements and the rebranding to X provided compelling evidence of X Corp.'s intent not to resume use of the Tweet mark and Bird logo.

Ultimately, the ruling suggested that these specific marks may have been freed from X's trademark control, implying that they have entered the public domain, pending any further action by Project Bluebird. The court viewed the ongoing supervision of the TWITTER mark by X Corp. as dubious, consistent with Musk’s actions, leading to the speculation that this mark will also enter the public domain.