pull down to refresh

Ope. Bluebird wants to relaunch “Twitter,” says Musk abandoned the name and logoarstechnica.com/information-technology/2025/12/can-twitter-fly-again-startup-wants-to-pry-iconic-trademark-from-musks-x/
40 sats \ 2 comments \ @0xbitcoiner 8h tech
“Abandonment” offers rare chance to reclaim one of tech’s most recognized brands.
A Virginia startup calling itself “Operation Bluebird” announced this week that it has filed a formal petition with the US Patent and Trademark Office, asking the federal agency to cancel X Corporation’s trademarks of the words “Twitter” and “tweet” since X has allegedly abandoned them.
“The TWITTER and TWEET brands have been eradicated from X Corp.’s products, services, and marketing, effectively abandoning the storied brand, with no intention to resume use of the mark,” the petition states. “The TWITTER bird was grounded.”
If successful, two leaders of the group tell Ars, Operation Bluebird would launch a social network under the name Twitter.new, possibly as early as late next year. (Twitter.new has created a working prototype and is already inviting users to reserve handles.)
Neither X Corporation nor its owner Elon Musk immediately responded to Ars Technica’s request for comment.
...read more at arstechnica.com
~AGORA
write
preview
related posts
33 sats \ 1 reply \ @grayruby 7h
I don’t see a ruling in the favour. I imagine it would have to be a lot longer than 2 years for abandonment to be considered.
reply
76 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner OP 7h
I don’t know if this is really going anywhere. I don’t get how they can even do this since Elon owns the brand. I mean, it’d make sense if he sold it. But the article says:
Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law professor and expert in trademark law, told Ars that X might be able to defend the Twitter marks if it can show that it is still using them.
“Mere ‘token use’ won’t be enough to reserve the mark,” Lemley wrote in an email. “Or [X] could defend if it can show that it plans to go back to using Twitter. Consumers obviously still know the brand name. It seems weird to think someone else could grab the name when consumers still associate it with the ex-social media site of that name. But that’s what the law says.”
cc/ @siggy47
reply