Can you lose a trade mark even after registering it? The Twitter case

When Elon Musk bought Twitter for around $44 billion, he acquired more than a technology platform: he also bought one of the world's most recognisable brands, a name that had entered everyday language alongside the verb “tweet” and the famous blue bird. A few months later, however, he decided to change everything. Twitter became X, the historic logo disappeared and tweets became simply “posts”. In July 2023, Musk publicly announced that the Twitter brand would soon be retired, followed gradually by all the birds associated with the platform's former identity.

Three years later, that rebranding decision also became a legal issue. A company called Operation Bluebird sought to use some of the signs abandoned by X to launch a new social network. The dispute reached the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, which ruled on 3 September 2026 on X Corp.'s request to prevent the startup from using the former marks.

The decision, although preliminary rather than final, is particularly interesting because the judge did not treat all the signs that once formed Twitter's identity in the same way. X obtained protection for TWITTER, but did not achieve the same result for TWEET and the old blue bird logo.

The reason lies in a fundamental rule of trade mark law that is often overlooked: registering a sign does not necessarily mean retaining the rights to it forever.

For TWITTER, X demonstrated that the old name still serves a commercial function. In the App Store, for example, the application is still presented as “X, formerly known as Twitter”. At first glance, this might look like a historical reference reminding users of the platform's former name. For the judge, however, the reference still links the current service to the considerable reputation built up by the Twitter brand and continues to perform a distinctive function. In other words, the old brand has not completely disappeared from the market: it is still used to identify X to the public.

The position was very different for TWEET and the Bird Logo. In the proceedings, X could not identify a significant current presence of these signs either on the platform's homepage or on its app page. The historical or residual material produced by the company was not considered sufficient, at least at this stage, to show actual use in the ordinary course of trade.

Musk's own public statements during the rebranding also made X's position more difficult. The announcement expressing an intention to say goodbye to the Twitter brand and gradually to the bird-related graphics was considered relevant evidence when assessing whether there was a real intention to resume using TWEET and the old logo.

The court therefore considered it likely that Operation Bluebird could establish abandonment of those two signs at the trial on the merits. This does not mean that X has definitively lost them: the proceedings have yet to reach a final conclusion. It does mean that, at the preliminary stage, X failed to obtain an injunction comparable to the one granted for TWITTER. The day after the decision, Operation Bluebird renamed its service Tweet.app.

The case arose in the United States, and the concept of abandonment under US law does not correspond exactly to European rules. The underlying principle, however, is similar: a trade mark is not protected simply because someone holds a registration certificate, but because it is used in the market to distinguish particular goods or services.

In the European Union too, registration does not allow a name or logo to be “frozen” indefinitely without use. After the initial period provided by law, an EU trade mark may be revoked if it has not been put to genuine use for an uninterrupted period of five years. Formal ownership of the mark, like payment of renewal fees, is therefore not necessarily enough to preserve protection.

This issue is especially important during rebranding. When a business changes its name or logo, acquires a new brand or discontinues a product line, the old mark may still have enormous economic value. That value nevertheless needs to be managed. The business must decide whether to continue using the sign, license it, maintain use sufficient to preserve rights, or knowingly accept that, over time, it may fall outside the scope of protection.

The Twitter case makes the issue particularly clear because it takes it to an extreme. X acquired a company whose name, logo and even the verb used by its users were known worldwide. It then chose to dismantle much of that identity to build a new one. A business is, of course, free to make that decision. The problem arises when rebranding is treated solely as a communications exercise rather than a choice affecting the company's industrial property assets.

Changing signage, a website, packaging or a logo does more than

introduce a new trade mark. It also determines what will happen to the previous ones. Which should remain in use? Which can be retained to prevent a competitor from occupying the space left behind? Which still have sufficient value to justify a preservation strategy? And which can be permanently abandoned?

These decisions are best made before rebranding, rather than after a third party has already begun using the old sign.

The dispute also highlights a broader misunderstanding of trade mark registration. Businesses usually focus on the initial stage: checking name availability, filing the application and obtaining registration. That is certainly the first essential step, but it does not complete the management of a trade mark. After registration come use, renewals, monitoring competitors' new applications, possible oppositions and, when the brand changes, management of the trade mark portfolio accumulated over time.

The paradox of the Twitter case is precisely this. One of the world's most famous names was still used enough for X to prevent a competitor from appropriating it. Two other symbols of the same history, the word TWEET and the blue bird, may instead have been allowed to go.

The difference does not depend on how famous they were.

It depends on what the owner continued to do with them after rebranding.

That is why registering a trade mark should be seen as the beginning of its protection, rather than the conclusion.

MarchioLegale assists businesses and professionals with searches, registration and protection of Italian and EU trade marks, as well as portfolio management during rebranding, logo changes and shifts in commercial strategy.