Twitter comeback bid draws lawsuit from Elon Musk’s X Corp
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Lament its demise, more accurately. Musk did not "evolve" the brand. He bought the userbase and quite clearly abandoned the trademark.
I guess I'll have to adjust my custom autotype to call this twisted new entity "The Platform That Abandoned the Twitter Brand."
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
The thing is that, so far, they haven't done anything wrong. They haven't used the trademark illegally, they have petitioned the USPTO to have the trademark assigned to them since X Corp no longer uses it.
So why is Musk suing? I suspect he thinks they have a good argument and he might lose the trademark. So he's trying to destroy them with legal fees.
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
Upvote
10
(14
/
-4)
I wouldn't be surprised if this accelerates the dismantling of the patent office to protect Phony Stark.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Let's be fair. Though the two feel synonymous in modern America; favoring Musk would be because they are a corrupt court, not because they are a conservative one. Though it feels like they would need to be corrupt to even take up the case. This appears to be a finding of fact (did X abandon the Twitter trademark), not a new interpretation of law.
How many non-corrupt conservatives are left in government: I do not know.
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
This is an interesting case that will affect more than just X Corp, there are cases of companies that have rebranded completely (for example, Cingular -> AT&T) or have acquired another major company with a recognizable name (like when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems).
Can someone claim that the trademark has been abandoned and setup an MVNO named "Cingular" (complete with the original logo) or start making PCs called "Sun Microsystems" (again, using the original logo)?
Not just reuse a slogan (which has already happened, Sun Microsystems's "The Network Is The Computer" slogan is now owned by Cloudflare), but the entire brand.
Can someone claim that the trademark has been abandoned and setup an MVNO named "Cingular" (complete with the original logo) or start making PCs called "Sun Microsystems" (again, using the original logo)?
Not just reuse a slogan (which has already happened, Sun Microsystems's "The Network Is The Computer" slogan is now owned by Cloudflare), but the entire brand.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)
I don't even think they would bother hearing it.
Musk isn't in favor with the regime currently.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Let's put that claim in perspective
View: https://bsky.app/profile/pewresearch.org/post/3ma4oferufv2c
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
I think the strategy for Musk is that it not even make it to trial. He just hopes to bury them in lawyers.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
When I worked for a huge, multinational corporation, trademark training was part of our annual barrage. The key message was that misusing, or simply not using, the company's trademarked brands in internal and external communication was opening the door to legal action that could lead to the loss of those brands.
It seems to me that X Corp has been doing all of the things that we were trained not to do.
(But of course IANAL.)
It seems to me that X Corp has been doing all of the things that we were trained not to do.
(But of course IANAL.)
Upvote
41
(41
/
0)
I am sure that there are important and nuanced legal differences (IANAL), but it strikes me as odd that this is being characterized as such an uphill battle considering that Xerox LOST their case when trying to sue folks for infringing on a trademark that they were still actively using as the name of their company. Simply because (as I understand it, again IANAL) they had been lax in enforcing it previously.
Is that what it comes down to? Not whether or not you are still using it, or even if you have actively disavowed it (as musk as done), but whether or not you sue enough people over their attempts to use it? is trade mark law really that fucked up?
Is that what it comes down to? Not whether or not you are still using it, or even if you have actively disavowed it (as musk as done), but whether or not you sue enough people over their attempts to use it? is trade mark law really that fucked up?
Upvote
-2
(5
/
-7)
"a trademark owner stops using a mark with no intent to resume, leading to loss of rights, often presumed after three consecutive years of non-use, shifting the burden to the owner to prove intent to restart"
Twitter officially became X in July 2023
Twitter officially became X in July 2023
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Someone still thinks the Napster brand is worth $207M in 2025:
Infinite Reality Acquires Iconic Music Service Napster
I don't know how relevant that has been since about 2001.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Incorrect. Musk has tucked his tail between his legs and is now donating lots of money to Republican campaigns. He's no longer favored, but he's now useful as a basically bottomless well of money for them.
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
Upvote
0
(2
/
-2)
I recognize that trademark and domain name are not the same thing, but I decided to look up the info on the domain twitter.com. The domain name is registered until just over a month from now.
- Registry Expiration: 2026-01-21 16:28:17 UTC
- Registrar Expiration: 2026-01-21 16:28:17 UTC
- Updated: 2025-01-17 06:08:06 UTC
- Created: 2000-01-21 16:28:17 UTC
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
They serve justice with relish, but not always to the benefit of those in a pickle.
Upvote
18
(19
/
-1)
Note that three years of non-use isn't a strict requirement, but shifts the burden of proof:
https://www.ny-trademark-lawyer.com/abandonment-and-nonuse-of-a-trademark.html
So Operation Bluebird would've had an easier case if they had waited until July 2026, but they still could potentially show the trademark has been abandoned. Musk literally saying that X was abandoning the Twitter name is pretty strong evidence of abandonment you don't normally see.
From Section 45 of the Lanham Act
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1127.html
So nonuse for 3 consecutive years is one form of evidence of abandonment, but not the only one.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
And they're still using twitter.com. Much as I'd like to see Bluebird succeed, I don't see how they have a chance.
Upvote
-13
(3
/
-16)
I couldn't care less for the Twitter brand, but this should be a slam dunk loss for "X". You abandoned the brand. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
Tired of companies being able to abandon IP ad nauseum but then go "but I WANT it" like a toddler when you try and use it.
Tired of companies being able to abandon IP ad nauseum but then go "but I WANT it" like a toddler when you try and use it.
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
I mean. It doesn't really make sense. Either trademark law is that they still use it, or the actual enforced law is that if it was popular before then a company gets to own it forever without use.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I think they also have to show they are actively guarding their trademark, a use/protect it or lose it kind of thing.
Upvote
-2
(0
/
-2)
I think the question of whether Muck has abandoned the Twitter trademark is moot and therefore irrelevant, so far as the lawsuit is concerned. All they need to say to defend against the lawsuit is "we havent used the trademark". The question of abandonment is for the USPTO office to answer.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
What world does Husk live in? He absolutely abandoned the trademark....But, of course, he thinks he is entitled to the cake and to eat it.....
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
It doesn't work like that. To wit:
Your domain name and your trade mark may consist of the same word or phrase, but they are entirely separate entities. A domain name is an internet address (e.g., www.360businesslaw.com); ownership of a domain can be acquired by purchasing it (if it is available) from domain name registrars. The domain name registrar regulates the use of the domain name.
A trade mark is a sign that is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one brand from those of another. A trade mark may consist of words, designs, letters, numerals, colours, shapes, sounds or motions and any combination of such signs.
To maintain a trademark you have to be making use of it as a trademark, not merely a forward of an internet address.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
I am no lawyer by any means, but I would argue that most tech sites still say X (formerly Twitter), still shows that the brand name Twitter is tied to X, then look for the many instances of people saying I read the "tweet" on X. The idea that Twitter/Tweet/X is still too interchangeable for it to be able to be fully abandoned.
I would love to see a new twitter, but I just don't see this winning. If it does, then we can read: X (formerly Twitter, but not the new Twitter)
I would love to see a new twitter, but I just don't see this winning. If it does, then we can read: X (formerly Twitter, but not the new Twitter)
Upvote
-16
(5
/
-21)
How other people treat the trademark is irrelevant. The question is how the owner of the trademark treats it. And I think it will have a hard time defending its rights to it in light of, say, this:
Upvote
24
(24
/
0)
No hyperbole, Twitter is the worst invention mankind has ever created.
Try naming something that is more damaging to society, while still being less useful. You can't do it.
Try naming something that is more damaging to society, while still being less useful. You can't do it.
Upvote
-16
(1
/
-17)
Agent seem to defend Musk then says that the case (that Musk filed) should be rejected as frivolous. Thus unwittingly providing the evidence for his final line that common sense is no more.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)