121 Alhambra Plaza, Suite 1500 Coral Gables, FL 33134
+1 (305) 489 1901
Our office hour: Mon - Fri
09.00am - 05.00pm
When a company stops using a brand, the law does not allow that company to indefinitely block others from using it. In the United States, trademark rights exist to protect active commercial use, not to preserve “museum pieces” of branding that no longer function in the marketplace.
That principle is at the heart of a petition recently filed to cancel several legacy TWITTER and TWEET registrations previously owned by Twitter, Inc. and now assigned to X Corp. This filing is an excellent opportunity to help clients understand what trademark abandonment is, how the law defines it, and why this matters for anyone developing or protecting a brand.
The governing definition is found in the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1127, which states that a mark is considered abandoned when:
In other words, a trademark owner must continue real commercial use of its registered marks and have an intent to keep using them. If either element disappears, rights can be lost.
The purpose of this rule is simple: U.S. trademark law protects active indicators of source, not historical names that no longer represent goods or services in the marketplace.
The petition to cancel the TWITTER-related trademarks outlines a detailed timeline showing that Twitter—after being acquired and merged into X Corp.—stopped using the TWITTER and TWEET brands entirely.
Major events supporting abandonment include:
Elon Musk stated on July 23, 2023 that the company would “bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”
This signal of intent not to resume use is a key factor.
The iconic blue bird logo was removed from apps, websites, and company headquarters and replaced with the X logo.
Twitter “tweets” were no longer called tweets—just “posts” or “xeets.”
As of May 17, 2024, the platform had migrated fully to x.com, eliminating active commercial use of the TWITTER name.
Numerous TWITTER-formative applications and registrations were allowed to abandon or lapse—further evidence of no intent to resume use.
Under the Lanham Act, these actions collectively indicate both nonuse and intent not to resume use, the two elements required for abandonment.
When another party (in this case, Operation Bluebird, Inc.) seeks to register a new mark—here, versions of TWITTER and TWEET for new services—the USPTO may refuse registration because older registrations still exist.
Even if the previous owner has stopped using the marks, the USPTO cannot simply remove them. A formal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceeding is required.
That is exactly what this petition does: it asks the TTAB to cancel registrations because X Corp. has legally abandoned the marks and continues to block new applications.
The petition explains that Bluebird’s applications have been suspended or refused based on these older registrations, giving them a legal basis (“entitlement to a statutory cause of action”) to seek cancellation.
Whether you are building a new brand or protecting an existing one, abandonment principles matter greatly:
The transformation from Twitter to X is one of the most high-profile corporate rebrands in modern history. But rebranding does not just involve new logos and new names—it also has serious trademark implications. The law requires ongoing commercial use to maintain rights, and when that use stops, the registrations no longer serve their purpose.
Understanding how abandonment works under the Lanham Act empowers businesses to protect their brands strategically—whether they are retiring a mark or looking to adopt one that may have been left behind.
If you have questions about whether a mark has been abandoned—or whether you can safely adopt a previously used name—professional legal guidance is essential.
