X likely abandoned TWEET trademark and Bird Logo, court rules, but keeps TWITTER for now

A federal court in Delaware has ruled, on a request for a preliminary injunction, that X Corp likely abandoned the TWEET trademark and the Bird Logo, while it has not abandoned the TWITTER mark. The case is X Corp. v. Project Bluebird Inc., 2026 WL 2606728 (D. Del., decided September 3, 2026). Project Bluebird runs a social media service meant to revive the pre-Musk Twitter experience; the service was previously named "twitter.new" and was renamed to "tweet.app" immediately after the ruling. Project Bluebird argues that X Corp abandoned the TWITTER, TWEET and Bird Logo marks once Elon Musk rebranded Twitter as X, and in 2025 it filed intent-to-use trademark applications for TWITTER and TWEET.

On TWITTER, the court sided with X Corp. It pointed to X Corp's listing for the X app on the Apple App Store, which reads: "Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter), your trusted digital town square where conversations unfold in real time, and the world connects through breaking news, live events, podcasts, and everything in between." The court treated this "formerly known as" phrasing as bona fide ongoing use of the Twitter-formative marks, reasoning that it tells customers what they knew as Twitter can now be found under the X app, letting X draw on residual goodwill toward the old brand.

On TWEET and the Bird Logo, the court reached the opposite conclusion. It noted that neither the Tweet mark nor the Bird Logo appears in X Corp's Apple App Store listing for the X app, and that X Corp conceded, eventually, at an April hearing that neither mark appears on x.com's home page either. Some of the evidence X Corp did submit was flawed: it referenced only TWITTER rather than the other marks, or lacked dates, which the court took as a sign the material was a leftover from before the rebrand rather than current use. Summing up, the court wrote that "Musk's pronouncements and X Corp.'s rebranding of the Twitter platform as X provide compelling evidence that X Corp. harbors an intent not to resume use of the Tweet mark and Bird logo."

The ruling decides only a request for a preliminary injunction; it is not a final decision on the merits of the underlying trademark dispute. The blog post reporting the ruling also argues, as commentary rather than as part of the court's holding, that the same "formerly known as" reasoning could plausibly have gone the other way for TWITTER too, and predicts that mark may eventually be found abandoned as well.

Key facts

A Delaware federal court ruled, on a preliminary injunction request in X Corp. v. Project Bluebird Inc. (2026 WL 2606728, D. Del., decided September 3, 2026), that X Corp likely abandoned the TWEET trademark and the Bird Logo but has not abandoned the TWITTER mark.
Project Bluebird, whose rival social service was renamed from "twitter.new" to "tweet.app" right after the ruling, filed intent-to-use trademark applications for TWITTER and TWEET in 2025 and argues X Corp abandoned all three marks.
The court found X Corp's Apple App Store description of the X app, "Welcome to X (formerly known as Twitter)...", counts as ongoing use of the TWITTER mark.
Neither the Tweet mark nor the Bird Logo appears in that App Store listing or on x.com's home page, which X Corp conceded at an April hearing; some of X Corp's supporting evidence was undated or referenced only TWITTER.
The ruling covers only the preliminary injunction request and is not a final decision on the merits.

Why it matters

TWEET and the bird logo were, for over a decade, among the most recognizable pieces of internet-era branding. A court finding that X Corp likely let both lapse into abandonment, while its Twitter-branded App Store listing still counts as active trademark use, draws a sharp practical line: telling customers "formerly known as Twitter" can keep an old mark alive, but dropping every visible instance of a name and a logo cannot. That line matters well beyond this one platform, since it shapes how any company retiring a legacy brand should think about what residual references are enough to preserve trademark rights.

Who it affects

X Corp, which keeps its claim to the TWITTER mark but is now exposed on TWEET and the Bird Logo. Project Bluebird, the defendant building a service meant to revive the old Twitter experience, which renamed itself from "twitter.new" to "tweet.app" the moment the ruling came down and had already filed to register TWITTER and TWEET in 2025. And, more broadly, anyone else who might want to build a product around the word "tweet" or a bird logo without X Corp's permission.

How to use it

If the TWEET mark and Bird Logo are indeed abandoned, they are, for now, free for others to use in ways that would previously have invited a trademark claim from X Corp, which is exactly what Project Bluebird is already doing by renaming its app "tweet.app". The TWITTER mark is different: the court found X Corp still holds it, so using "Twitter" as a brand name for a competing product remains legally risky. Both conclusions rest on a preliminary ruling, not a final judgment, so anyone relying on them should treat the position as provisional rather than settled.

How solid is it

This is a ruling on a preliminary injunction request, explicitly not the final word on the merits of the case. The TWEET and Bird Logo finding rests on specific, checkable evidence: their absence from X Corp's App Store listing and from x.com's home page, plus a concession X Corp made at an April hearing, and some of X Corp's own submitted evidence being undated or covering only TWITTER. The TWITTER finding rests on one specific piece of evidence, the App Store's "formerly known as Twitter" line, and the source itself notes the court could plausibly have read that phrasing the other way.

Risks and caveats

The decision could still be reversed or narrowed once the case reaches a final ruling on the merits, and either side could appeal. The source does not name the presiding judge, does not state what relief Project Bluebird is ultimately seeking beyond the injunction, does not give the year of the April hearing referenced in the ruling, and does not say whether X Corp intends to contest the preliminary finding further. The blog post reporting the ruling also mixes case facts with the author's own opinion, including a prediction that the TWITTER mark will eventually be found abandoned too; that prediction is commentary, not part of the court's holding.

“Musk's pronouncements and X Corp.'s rebranding of the Twitter platform as X provide compelling evidence that X Corp. harbors an intent not to resume use of the Tweet mark and Bird logo.”

— the court, in X Corp. v. Project Bluebird Inc.