01/09/2026
Is Twitter really back…?
A new social media platform has launched using one of the most recognisable names in social media: TWITTER. It is not Elon Musk’s X and, despite being described in some commentary as “Twitter 2”, the new platform is Twitter.now, operated by Operation Bluebird, Inc.
There is, however, a rather significant trade mark dispute behind the launch. Operation Bluebird contends that, when Twitter was rebranded as X, X Corp. abandoned the TWITTER and TWEET brands and the trade mark rights associated with them.
Operation Bluebird has consequently sought to cancel certain of X Corp.’s US trade mark registrations and has itself sought rights in the old Twitter branding. X Corp., unsurprisingly, disagrees and has instituted trade mark infringement proceedings against Operation Bluebird in the US federal court.
So, has X already lost the TWITTER trade mark? No. The dispute is still in progress, X’s registrations have not simply ceased to exist, and there has not yet been a final determination that X abandoned its rights in TWITTER. The case does, however, raise a fascinating trade mark question. If a business deliberately retires an enormously valuable brand, replaces it with an entirely different one and stops using the old branding, for how long can it continue preventing somebody else from using that old brand?
🇿🇦 The South African position provides an interesting comparison. Under section 27 of the South African Trade Marks Act, a registered trade mark may, in certain circumstances, be removed from the register on the ground of non-use. Importantly, where there has been no bona fide use of a registered mark for a continuous period of five years or longer, the registration may become vulnerable to an application for removal, subject to the requirements and exceptions contained in the Act.
The South African concept of non-use is not the same legal test as abandonment under US trade mark law, and the two should not be conflated. The broader commercial lesson is nevertheless important: registering a trade mark does not necessarily mean that it can be placed in a cupboard indefinitely while its owner moves on to an entirely different brand.
TWITTER is, of course, an exceptional example because of the extraordinary reputation still attached to the name, and X clearly maintains that its rights continue. Whether the move from Twitter to X was simply a rebrand, or whether valuable trade mark rights were ultimately left behind, is precisely what makes this dispute worth watching.
For brand owners, there is also a practical lesson here. When undertaking a major rebrand, the question should not only be “What are we going to call ourselves next?”, but also “What are we going to do with the trade marks we leave behind?”
Need help? Contact STEYN IP. ⚖️
