Do you still call it Twitter? How Rebranding Affects Trademark Claims

Credit: rawpixel.com

Introduction 

Even though it's been over two years since X changed its name from Twitter, the microblogging social media platform has yet to see the public buy into the rebrand. Online articles still write "formerly Twitter” to clarify, and many users still call posts “Tweets.” Even in casual conversation, “Twitter” remains the verbiage for 55% of daily users in the U.S. (and nearly 80% in the U.K.). Discarding the iconic name “Twitter” also came with financial consequences, dropping between $4 billion and $20 billion in value. The ongoing resistance by the public to submit to X’s rebrand is a subtle reflection of the legal intricacies of trademarks on branding. 

   Credit: Flickr 

Elon Musk, who bought X in 2022 and officially merged Twitter into X Corp. in 2023, said that the company would “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.” Twitter’s blue bird logo and the adoption of “Tweet” as a verb marked the success of the company’s original branding because users came to associate the platform’s identity with both its visual symbols and the actions performed on it. By changing the branding, people lost the association, and now have a harder time adopting the new language used by X. More than that, X now has to navigate the legal effects of trademarks. 

After announcing the rebrand, X dealt with a number of lawsuits, including a major battle of trademark infringement that centered on “brand confusion,” that was ultimately settled in September 2025. Now, X Corp. is making headlines for its suit against a social media startup that claims X “legally abandoned X’s trademark of the words ‘Twitter’ and ‘Tweet.’” 

The various infringement suits with X Corp. bring to light important questions about how rebranding affects trademarks. When a company intentionally leaves its iconic branding, does it also risk discarding the trademark protections attached to it? What does abandoning a mark mean for a business? Although a name or logo change may appear to only affect marketability of a brand, there is very real legal tension between trademark abandonment and rebranding. Without careful planning, companies risk unintentionally forfeiting valuable intellectual property.  

Credit: Flooxernow

Legal Background 

Trademark abandonment is governed by the Lanham Act. There are two ways a trademark or iconic symbol can be abandoned, either through non-use or loss of significant source. Usually, when brands take to the courts on a claim of trademark abandonment, they are attempting to prove that they did not abandon through “non-use”. The two elements of this claim are discontinued use in commerce and intent not to resume use. Three years of non-use is presumed to trigger abandonment. 

In the past, brands have lost trademark rights over symbols and branding when they are not able to show a definite intent to use. In Imperial Tobacco Ltd. v. Philip Morris, Inc., Imperial Tobacco lost rights to its “PLAYER’S” branding after failing to show concrete plans to resume commercial use after not using the mark for three years. A mere idea of return or distant future plan is not enough to retain ownership of a trademark. Additionally, when brands intentionally phase out old branding or marks from the marketplace, it can be inferred as intent to abandon. This was evident in Exxon Corp. v. Humble Exploration where a company operating under the name “Humble” rebranded as “Exxon”. When a separate company began using the “Humble” name, Exxon sued for copyright infringement and lost. This case follows a long line of decisions that show the court will infer abandonment of a trademark by companies absent concrete evidence of intent to continue use. 

The Challenges of Reviving Old Branding

While past precedent has established long-standing guidelines for determining if a trademark has been abandoned, the issue of attempted trademark revival still emerges in modern-day companies. One way this is prevalent is when legacy brands aim to revive old branding or logos in fashion, sports or marketing. Recently, Nike ran into trouble when trying to revive their “Total 90” apparel line. Nike previously held the trademark rights for “Total 90” after selling branded apparel throughout the early 2000’s. The trademark expired in 2019 after Nike allowed it to lapse. The same year, a Louisiana-based soccer company started using the name “TOTAL90” and secured trademark registrations for the name. Fast forward to March 2025, Nike is relaunching their “Total 90” products. The Louisiana-based TOTAL90 LLC has alleged that Nike's use of the name infringes its federal trademark rights and will lead to “reverse confusion” where the Nike brand overshadows the smaller company. While the case is ongoing, the court denied a temporary restraining order that would have halted Nike from using the trademark while proceedings continue. This is a positive sign for Nike as they attempt to show that they retain rights to the trademark through common use even after the registration lapsed. 

Credit: Nike 

X’s Current Trademark Abandonment 

X is also experiencing the “revival” of old trademarks in a recent dispute with social media startup Operation Bluebird. The startup filed a petition with the United States Patent And Trademark Office seeking cancellation of X’s federal registrations for “Twitter” and “Tweet,” arguing that the company legally abandoned the marks after its rebrand. The petition states that, “X Corp. has ceased any bona fide use of the Disputed Registrations in commerce, with no intent to resume such use, since the final integration of the twitter.com domain name to x.com on May 17, 2024.” It also suggests that X’s removal of the Twitter name and bird logo from the platform, buildings, and websites, along with public statements declaring a departure from the brand, are evidence of discontinued use and intent not to resume. Under the Lanham Act, three consecutive years of nonuse create a rebuttable presumption of abandonment, and Operation Bluebird contends that X’s deliberate and highly public “farewell” to Twitter supports that inference. In response, X filed a countersuit, claiming that residual and ongoing uses of the marks through legacy URLs, historical references, and continued public association demonstrate that “Twitter” still functions as a source identifier. 

The outcome of this case could shape how courts interpret abandonment in the context of digital platforms and rapid corporate rebranding. If the court finds abandonment, it would signal that the sort of sweeping rebrand, like X’s, carries substantial trademark risk when accompanied by public statements distancing the company from prior branding. If the court rejects the abandonment claim, though, it may broaden the understanding of what constitutes continued use in an era where consumers sometimes refuse to recognize a company’s rebranding. Either way, the recent dispute faced by X is a call for companies to adjust their planning when it comes to new names and logos to consider potential legal ramifications. 

Looking Forward for Branding in Business 

Names may seem simple, and even trivial at times, with a name as easy as “X.” It may seem like the simplest part of creating a business. However, the branding that goes into these names is where the intersection of business, law, and marketing weaves a complicated web of responsibility. Re-branding often occurs as a response to changes in market trends as companies seek new audiences or try to stay relevant. Since the abandonment of the old for the new leaves companies open to trademark lapses, there is a precarious cost-benefit analysis to tread.

 Companies need to remember that pop culture trends typically recirculate every five to twenty years, especially in fashion, social media, and music. The power of nostalgia is a powerful marketing force, and the ability to return to old branding is a business asset. To protect themselves, companies would do well to protect their rights by developing clear and definite plans to resume use of their old brand after five years. This would provide the requisite evidence that the company has planned infrastructure to actually realize resuming use of the old brand rather than having a general intent to. 

The five-year recirculation period of trends is not far off from the three-year non-use timeline used by courts. Using this as a structure would allow brands time to notice market trend changes that could indicate a need to return to the original brand. During the two years after the three-year period expires, the company should designate more resources to monitor recent trademarks and markets for their brand use to prevent implied abandonment by non-use. Furthermore, this plan is not binding. After the five year period, the company can simply choose not to resume use, or they can develop a new plan based on their gathered trend data. This is a solution that affords existing companies flexibility to adjust to market changes, foster creative progress, and protect the history of their brand. The core of trademark law is to simultaneously protect consumers and the companies behind the brand. Companies should treat their past branding as a legally protected strategic asset, not a relic to discard. Those that plan deliberately for potential revival while safeguarding against non-use will be better positioned to balance market agility with legal security and creative reinvention with the consumer trust that trademark law is designed to protect. 

Conclusion 

Even after two years, many users still call “X” Twitter. That cultural resistance reflects the powerful connection between names, goodwill, and legal protection. The ongoing trademark disputes plaguing X are a prime example of how rebranding is never just aesthetic. When a company distances itself from an iconic mark, it risks walking away from the legal rights attached to it. Trademark law rewards consistent use and clear intent, not the extreme farewells like that of X. The lessons from Nike, X, and legacy brands across industries are examples of how a brand name is more than marketing, it is an asset. Once that name is abandoned, it may not be so easy to reclaim. That is why companies interested in rebranding should follow the three to five year cycle already established by trends, and the judiciary to maintain flexibility and protection over their brands, both old and new.

*The views expressed in this article do not represent the views of Santa Clara University.