According to TechCrunch, Elon Musk’s X updated its Terms of Service on January 15, 2026, to explicitly state it still lays claim to the “Twitter” trademark. This move directly responds to a petition for cancellation filed by a Virginia-based startup, Operation Bluebird, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on December 2. The startup’s legal argument hinges on a July 23, 2023, post from Musk where he said the service would “bid adieu to the twitter brand,” claiming X abandoned the trademark by renaming itself. Operation Bluebird is run by two lawyers, including former Twitter trademark lawyer Stephen Coates, and has been collecting sign-ups at a site called Twitter.new. The updated terms now forbid users from using either the “X” or “Twitter” names without express written consent, a section that previously only mentioned X.
A legal shot across the bow
Here’s the thing: this is a pretty classic, if bold, trademark maneuver. Operation Bluebird isn’t just some random folks with a website. They’re lawyers who know the system, and they’re using Musk’s own very public pronouncements against him. Their argument that a brand was abandoned isn’t crazy on its face—you can’t just stop using a trademark and expect to keep it forever. But let’s be real. Does anyone actually think these lawyers are seriously building the next great social network to rival X? Probably not. This looks much more like a play to either force a settlement or acquire the trademark themselves, which still holds immense residual value. It’s a high-stakes game of legal chicken.
Musk’s branding mess comes home to roost
And this is the entirely predictable consequence of Musk’s chaotic rebrand. He treated one of the most recognizable brand names in tech—a verb that entered the dictionary—like a disposable toy. Now, he’s having to pay lawyers to clean up the mess and formally claw back the name in a legal document. The updated Terms of Service are a defensive, reactive move. It shows that for all the talk of “X” being the “everything app,” the company knows it can’t just let the “Twitter” identity float away into the public domain. There’s too much cultural baggage and recognition there. It’s a tacit admission that the rebrand might have been more trouble than it was worth.
So what happens now?
This will likely drag on for a while in trademark court. X has deep pockets for legal fights, but these kinds of cancellation proceedings can be messy and subjective. The USPTO will have to weigh Musk’s very clear intent to kill the “Twitter” brand against the company’s ongoing efforts to protect it legally. The real risk for X isn’t necessarily losing the trademark outright, but getting tied up in a costly dispute that creates uncertainty. And let’s not forget the minor updates about EU law and age assurance tech in the new terms—the company is trying to shore up all its legal flanks at once. Basically, it’s a reminder that in business, you can’t just say you’re abandoning something. You have to legally, formally abandon it, and even then, someone might be waiting to pick up the pieces.
