X sues to protect Twitter brand Musk has been trying to kill

X has filed a lawsuit against a social media startup over the Twitter brand, effectively acknowledging that millions still use the Twitter domain, call Elon Musk's platform "Twitter," and their emissions "tweets." A week ago, Operation Bluebird announced that "after 12 months of quiet work," it had filed to claim the Twitter …

[Rich 2]

Trademarks

I don’t know what the rules are in cowboy land but certainly in the UK, a trademark cannot remain registered as such of it is not in use. This is to stop someone just squatting on a trademark to stop it being used by someone else (which sounds suspiciously like what Musk is trying to do)

Clearly Xitter no longer wish to use the twitter trademark, and I’m not convinced just having the twitter domain name counts as “use” for these purposes if it’s not being actively marketed as such.

If the trademark was never “registered” then I think it’s fair game anyway - I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong

[The Mole]

Re: Trademarks

I'm pretty sure having an active website on the twitter domain name would be sufficient to count as usage given it means they and their customers are still using it.

Not registering your trademark makes it harder to prove knowledge by a person infringing it and harder to prove the domains the trademark covers. A social media startup 'randomly' calling themselves bluebird and trying to register the twitter trademark is going to have an extremely hard time disproving prior knowledge of X.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Trademarks

"I'm pretty sure having an active website on the twitter domain name would be sufficient to count as usage given it means they and their customers are still using it."

Indeed. When companies change their name or merge it's also pretty normal for them to retain ownwership of previous brand names and logos as those might well be used in old contracts, communications, and peopke might simply continue to use them in referring to the company / service (as with Twitter).

Can't see that the challenger would have a leg to stand on here, to be honest!

[that one in the corner]

Re: Trademarks

> When companies change their name or merge it's also pretty normal for them to retain ownwership of previous brand names and logos as ...

Those are very good reasons for a company to want ensure that it also retains the old trademarks associated with those names & logos. Not that there is any legal requirement to w.r.t. old contracts, letters etc: unless they were incredibly badly worded, those don't suddenly become invalid just due to change of ownership or mergers. Although it is commonplace for contracts be promptly reissued under the new ownership, that is also when the new owners inform you that the terms have changed (pray they do not change them further)*

But those good reasons for *wanting* do not automatically mean that the new company *does* retain the old trademarks indefinitely: the company has to still make the effort to keep them active as much as previously, and in the public eye. For example, by listing the old trademarks on current products, ads etc.

* I've had subscriptions shut down by the new owners "because we never issue that kind of subscription".

PS

Of course, all these things differ under different legal systems in different countries...

[doublelayer]

Re: Trademarks

That is technically true, but the criteria for using it are usually pretty generous. Millions of references and an active website will almost certainly count. I don't think X has any risk of losing the trademark. Neither do I think they can prove any damages from an application that, had they done nothing, would likely have been rejected all on its own, so the rest of X's lawsuit doesn't make much sense.

[David Hicklin]

Re: Trademarks

> so the rest of X's lawsuit doesn't make much sense.

It is probably designed to deter anyone else trying

[IGotOut]

Re: Trademarks

"Each day, more than four million users access the X platform through the TWITTER.com domain; "

If four million a day us not classed as still in use, I'm not sure what is.

[cjcox]

Re: Trademarks

You're wrong... and right. There's the "idea" of "how we think" laws should work, and there's reality. Reminds me of when Red Hat was young and everyone was distributing cheap CDs with "Red Hat Linux" on them. IMHO, according to "the law", if those entities had proper legal advice, they could have easily argued for the removal of the trademark from Red Hat, because Red Hat was not doing any due diligence to protect their trademark. Times Red Hat has long forgotten, and honestly doesn't want you know about.

Anyhow, there's a reason why patents seem to be near infinite in length. And it's no surprise patents and trademarks are the same department in the USA.

However, it is a "duh" moment against Operation Bluebird. That is, even a novice with little or no understanding knows that you can't just "take" a registered trademark because "you think" it has no value to the owner. There's a ton of these out there. Products that no longer exist.... give it a try. Try to use the forgotten names.... I dare you.

Anyway, maybe it's not so obvious, but anyone that has done a patent and trademark search already knows about all of this.

[Omnipresent]

Re: Trademarks

Seems to me someone told him "hey, people like and use twitter's name to this day, and that is free advertising for you, and good advertising."

and he was all like, "You're right."

[MachDiamond]

Re: Trademarks

"I don’t know what the rules are in cowboy land but certainly in the UK, a trademark cannot remain registered as such of it is not in use. "

It's the same in the US. They still own the twitter domain and forward the URL Twitter.com so maybe there's an argument there that lets them squeak past an abandonment.

I'm not sure how a US court would feel about striking a Trademark like Twitter and allowing reuse when a successor company is still offering the same services. Of all the names and service marks that could be used, a company looking to reuse something is a company trying to ride on coattails to give themselves legitimacy that they don't deserve.

JBL, now a Samsung company, started as the James B. Lansing company. If I went into making speakers and named my company the James B. Lansing company, that would be rather cheeky even though the trademark stopped being used many years ago. Samsung might succeed in blocking the usage. #1 is they have herds of blood sucking lawyers where I don't and #2, a judge might want to side with them/against me.

[Alan Brown]

Re: Trademarks

In that case it'd likely be a "passing off" tort case rather than trademark infringement

[herman]

Re: Trademarks

The Trashmen were first: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rGeIX0kaMao

[abend0c4]

Users around the world continue to refer to the platform as TWITTER and posts as TWEETS

Given the platform is called "X", that does rather sound dangerously adjacent to arguing that Twitter has become a generic term like "Hoover". Perhaps a victory by either side may prove Pyrrhic.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Users around the world continue to refer to the platform as TWITTER and posts as TWEETS

abend0c4,

Twitter isn't generic. You don't post a Tweet on TikTok or Facebook. To Tweet is to post on X/Twitter. It's a completely specific term. Similarly people talk about social media, for Facebook, Twitter etc. So I can't see any downsides to defending the trademark, short of looking a bit silly from changing the name to X in the first place.

Google has become generic. Most people say, "Can you Google that?" Rather than, "Can you search for that?" Similarly iPod became the name, since almost nobody said MP3 player.

[iam_sysop]

Just remember - even the scraps of garbage the billionaires don't even want is STILL off limits to you.

#EatTheRich

[David Hicklin]

> #EatTheRich

I bet they would taste awful though.

[Piro]

Deadnaming it

Is what Elon would want anyway. Strange conflict.

[cd]

It's sleeping...

[Dan 55]

Look, matey, I know a dead bluebird when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

[MiguelC]

Is it an X Bluebird?

[Ken Shabby]

Mate, this bird wouldn't "voom" if you put four million volts through it! 'E's bleedin' demised

[Evil Auditor]

Pining for the fjords?

[KayJ]

X, pronounced "sh"

[Anonymous Coward]

or z, as in zit

[Anonymous Coward]

This*

You no longer "send a tweet" you "squeeze out a zit".

"Did you see Elon's angry zit about Twitter trademarks?"

* There is precedence, the pronunciation of xylophone or Xavier.

[that one in the corner]

Or chi, as in Knuth's TeX, which rhymes with the word bleccchhh.

"If you say it properly, your screen should become moist".

Or go the whole hog: "Ecchh (huucchhh spit ding)"

[Cruachan]

Companies normally go to enormous lengths to prevent their trademarks becoming generic (E.g. Hoover instead of vacuum cleaner, Biro instead of ballpoint pen) but in this case someone bought one of the world's most recognisable brands, renamed it, and is now trying to protect the old name, which almost every website refers to like Prince when he was "the artist" or whatever variant. "X, formerly Twitter" is almost always what you see on news sites etc.

[LBJsPNS]

"Prince"

Are you referring to The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist Formerly Known As Prince?

[Rich 2]

While I laughed at the pretentiousness of the “Artist formally…” thing, along with most people, I only realised much later that he did it to get back at Sony; changing his name to “squiggle” to be deliberately unpronounceable

[Zack Mollusc]

squiggle

Before, during and after the name changes, everyone round these parts just called him Ponce, or That Pretentious Wanker Ponce, as in "Jesus, they are playing Ponce again, turn the radio off for a bit!". Nice to hear he did one good thing ever in causing the twats at Sony some grief.

[Anonymous Coward]

Will someone please take Elon to the

cleaners financially. The world would love to see him get more than a well deserved slap in the face.

[Flocke Kroes]

Re: Will someone please take Elon to the

He is investing heavily in the AI bubble. There is a SpaceX IPO planned for next year so Musk can trade ownership of SpaceX for tulips.com. I am really hoping that will make him a millionaire again.

[Sam 15]

Re: Will someone please take Elon to the

"The world would love to see him get more than a well deserved slap in the face."

Judging by the photographs I've seen, he's been on the receiving end of a whole lot of serious slappage.

[Like a badger]

Re: Will someone please take Elon to the

Let's hope the slappage continues.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Re: Will someone please take Elon to the

The slappage will continue, until morale improves...

[ajadedcynicaloldfart]

Correction needed?

F.t.a. "Having acquired Twitter in 2022, billionaire Musk ditched the branding in favor of X a year later. Gone was the bird logo and the name of the company he splurged $44 billion for."

The article did not mention that most of that 44 billion was "other peoples money".

Melon spend his own (on paper) fortune? Heaven forbid...

[Steve Davies 3]

Re: Heaven forbid...

Just like his teacher, Trump.

Just wait for all the contractors involved with his golden ballroom and his Trumpiant Arch to be forced into Chapter 11 or 7 because he decides that the work they did was not good enough and they won't get paid.

Grifers both of them.

[Victor Ludorum]

Re: Heaven forbid...

Grifers both of them.

I initially mis-read that as griefers, then realised it was supposed to be grifters. Or was it...?

[DS999]

Re: Heaven forbid...

I read it that way too and wouldn't have noticed it if not for your post. Both meanings are true so I guess it was a rare case of a typo that made a post better lol

[Alan Brown]

Re: Correction needed?

Debt leveraged corporate takeovers - leveraged against the value of the company being purchased - have been the norm for a while now. It's what allows asset-stripping vulture capitalists/capital management companies to destroy functioning companies, leaving a dusty shell whilst laughing all the way to the bank

(Every single time, as soon as the company is purchased the new owners seek to maximise revenue to recover their purchase price within 3 years and in the case of social media, almost every time that has resulted in mass exoduses of the userbase as they start being squeezed to provide income)

[Simon Rockman]

I recently heard it referred to as TwiX, but I think there may be prior on that.

[Mickey Porkpies]

TWATTER

go with this it's a nod to the original and to the TWAT that destroyed it

[Phiphi in SoCal]

Needs a rebrand as TWIX.

[that one in the corner]

But you are only allowed to see the Right Twix; nothing exists on the Left*

* which is very true from the perspective across the Pond, even given how hard our lot are trying.

[mark l 2]

Ill never refer to it as X it will always be Twitter, mainly because Elon wants everyone to call it X as he think it sounds cool like the 7 year old child he is.

[cjcox]

Operation Bluebird: I'm ignorant of law, therefore, everyone else must be too.

Sigh. Can't believe the lunacy on this one. "Oh, look a One Way sign, therefore I will go the other way."

The information is well known and accessible. This is worse than not understanding 101 class sorts of things. More like "sky is blue". Unbelievable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the “poo” emoji available?

Just call it Shitter.

That fits most social media output.

[JimBz]

Probably a smart strategic move by twitter.new. You lose the case, but get the free publicity for the new platform. Modify the logo and name. Job done.

[MachDiamond]

"Probably a smart strategic move by twitter.new. You lose the case, but get the free publicity for the new platform. Modify the logo and name. Job done."

After the lawyers have been paid, it's damn expensive advertising.

[I ain't Spartacus]

Expensive, but advertising on the front page always costs more than a few banners on websites, or adverts buried in stories in the middle of the paper (or whatever the website equivalent is).

Plus, it being an open-and-shut case, you don't need to employ the best lawyers. Cheap ones will do, you've got no chance anyway.

Plus, there's always a chance Musk could do something really stupid, and lose the case.

[Whiznot]

X is a variable so I can call it Twitter and I can tweet. Twitter can be a great resource of information or it can be trash. If you find that it is trash you are the problem. I find Twitter to be a great source for information on health and wealth. In contrast, television and mainstream corporate media lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could have just typed "I'm an idiot" - fewer characters.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free speech absolute-tit

> "If you find that it is trash you are the problem"

Yep, I'm *certain* that's the only problem with Xitter... well, that and the fact that it's run by a far-right-sympathising white supremacist who uses his power to actively promote his own such views and those of others he sympathises with while banning those he disagrees with.

[Anonymous Coward]

Has the idiot known as twat registered X as a trademark?

I seriously think you could get away with that in America.

[OllieJones]

Wanton brand destruction shenanigans continue

This Musk dude will go down in biz-school brand management case study history for what not to do.

When he bought the little blue bird, the word "tweet" was well on its way to the nirvana occupied by the likes of "hoover", "kleenex", "fridge" and "styrofoam" -- a brand so transcendently well-known it becomes part of common language. AND, "twitter" was still a defensible brand. That combination has enduring value as a trademark.

But, no, Musk bought all that and tried to flush it down the toilet. This counterattack sounds like he did some panic-induced screaming at some trademark lawyers. I hope they're billing at least a few thousand an hour for tolerating his abuse.

This guy hates branding. X? WTF? I think it's because the only entity that has more power in the modern world than oligarchs is the customers of household brands. People can be effective boycotting Target or Nestle or Jim Beam or whatever if they don't like their policies. It's a weakness at the heart of the strength of big companies. But it isn't a weakness when companies serve their customers.