IP Law Daily, TRADEMARK NEWS: X Corp. sues Twitter.new’ website operator for infringement of TWITTER marks, (Dec 18, 2025)

By Carolin Dennis, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.

The complaint alleges that Bluebird’s use of the identical and confusingly similar “TWITTER” mark, and Infringing Logo, is likely to cause irreparable injury to the reputation of X Corp., as well as the goodwill developed by X Corp., and its predecessor Twitter, Inc., for its services and the TWITTER Marks.

X Corp. filed a complaint against Operation Bluebird, Inc. (Bluebird), in the U.S. District Court for District of Delaware for trademark infringement over its launch of its infringing social media platform called “Twitter.new.” X Corp. seeks injunctive relief, as well as actual damages, statutory damages and fees and costs necessitated by Bluebird’s acts of infringement of X Corp.’s trademark rights and copyrights (X Corp. v. Operation Bluebird, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01510-UNA (D. Del. filed on Dec. 16, 2025)).

TWITTER is one of the world’s most recognized brands, and it belongs to X Corp. Introduced in 2006, the TWITTER platform, with its iconic logo, changed the Internet forever. While Twitter, Inc. merged into X Corp. in March 2023, and the Twitter platform was later rebranded to “X” in 2023, TWITTER continues to persist in many ways. The TWITTER brand has evolved over time, but X Corp. still utilizes the brand—intentionally maintaining its rights to its world-famous assets, in large part to avoid loss of consumers who continue to think of the platform as TWITTER and it is still recognized and loved by millions of consumers. Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through the TWITTER.com domain; users around the world continue to refer to the platform as TWITTER and posts as TWEETS; consumer and client-facing webpages continue to use each of the TWITTER Marks; third-party licensees continue to display the TWITTER logo as the social media favicon on their business websites; and X Corp. actively maintains and enforces its rights in the TWITTER Marks.

X Corp. contended that the included in its 2023 merger was the flagship TWITTER platform, along with its intellectual property portfolio, the trademark and copyright registrations that X Corp. continue to own today, and the brand value and goodwill. X Corp. owns and continues to maintain rights in the following incontestable registered TWITTER Marks, all of which are valid and subsisting. Further, X Corp.’s registrations are prima facie evidence that X Corp. owns the valid and protectible right to exclusive use of the TWITTER name for these and related services.

X Corp. argued that a rebrand is not an abandonment of trademark rights and that even as it moves the Twitter platform towards its predominant X brand, X Corp.’s use of the TWITTER Marks continues on, and its goodwill inures to X Corp. alone.

X Corp. claimed that Bluebird’s “TWITTER” mark and its Infringing Logo are the same and/or are confusingly similar to the registered TWITTER Marks. Further, Bluebird’s “TWITTER” mark and Infringing Logo are used in connection with social networking products and services that are overlapping and related to the products and services offered by X Corp., and Bluebird has also applied to register the trademark TWITTER in the same classes and for similar goods and services as the registered TWITTER Marks. Therefore, Bluebird’s uses of “TWITTER,” along with its Infringing Logo are likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the source, origin, sponsorship or affiliation of X Corp.’s products and services, and are likely to cause consumers to incorrectly believe that Bluebird’s products and services originate from, or have been authorized, sponsored, approved, or endorsed by X Corp., or that Bluebird’s businesses are otherwise connected to, sponsored by, or affiliated with X Corp. in some way

Additionally, Bluebird’s unauthorized use of the TWITTER Marks and its Infringing Logo in connection with the distribution or sale of its services dilutes, and will continue to dilute, the distinctiveness of the TWITTER Marks, which consumers, businesses, and industry associate uniquely with X Corp. and its services.

X Corp. also argued that Bluebird copied protected expression from X Corp.’s copyrighted Twitter Bird Copyrights in creating and using the Infringing Logo. Bluebird then displayed the Infringing Logo on its website, in promotional material, and on social media profiles in violation of X Corp.’s copyrights.

Claims, remedies sought. X Corp. is seeking a jury trial and asserts eight causes of action: (1) trademark infringement, (2) common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, (3) federal counterfeiting, (4) false designation of origin and unfair competition, (5) deceptive trade practices under Delaware Law, (6) trademark dilution under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, (7) trademark dilution Under Delaware Law, and (8) copyright infringement.

X Corp. requests the district court that Bluebird be temporarily, preliminarily, and then permanently enjoined and restrained from using and registering the “TWITTER” mark, or any other logo, device, design, or word mark that is a colorable imitation of, or is similar to, the TWITTER Marks. Among other relief, X Corp. asks the district court that Bluebird account to X Corp. for its profits and any damages sustained by X Corp., to the extent calculable, arising from the foregoing acts of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition and deceptive acts and practices, and in accordance with such accounting, X Corp. be awarded judgment for three times such profits or damages (whichever is greater); and that the USPTO be directed to deny and invalidate Bluebird’s application to register the infringing TWITTER mark. X Corp. also asks the district court to award statutory damages of up to $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale, or distributed; actual damages suffered as a result of Bluebird’s copyright infringement, together with Bluebird’s profits attributable to such infringement that are not taken into account in computing actual damages; and in the alternative to actual damages and profits, award X Corp. statutory damages for Bluebird’s infringement of each copyrighted work, in an amount up to $150,000 per work infringed for willful infringement, or such other amount as the Court deems just. Additionally, X Corp. seeks injunctive relief restraining Bluebird from any further acts of infringement of X Corp.’s copyrights, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees and disbursements.

The Case is No. 1:25-cv-01510-UNA.

Attorneys: Andrew C. Mayo (Ashby & Geddes, P.A.) for X Corp.

Companies: X Corp.; Operation Bluebird, Inc.

News: Copyright TechnologyInternet Trademark DelawareNews GCNNews