Judge Blocks Bluebird’s 'Twitter.now' Use, Allows 'Tweet' and Bird Logo

U.S. District Court Judge Colm F. Connolly issued a split ruling on X’s request for a preliminary injunction against Operation Bluebird, a Virginia-based startup seeking to use former Twitter trademarks. The court blocked the startup from using “Twitter.now” but denied X’s motion to stop use of the word “tweet” and the Twitter bird logo.

What the court found on trademark abandonment

In his opinion, Judge Connolly wrote that Bluebird was “likely to succeed in proving both that X Corp. discontinued the bona fide use of the Tweet mark and Bird logo and that it intends not to resume the use of the marks.” The ruling applies specifically to eight Twitter-related marks — for which the injunction was granted — and two others — “Tweet” and the bird logo — for which it was denied.

Operation Bluebird’s rebrand and public rollout

Following the decision, Operation Bluebird rebranded its website as Tweet.app and launched to the public. Before launch, more than 172,000 people requested a handle on the site, according to statements the company gave to TechCrunch. The startup charges users $20 to reserve a handle and join the platform, a fee the company has indicated helps cover legal expenses.

The founders’ background and stated mission

The effort is led by two lawyers: Michael Peroff, founder and Illinois-based attorney, and Stephen Coates, who previously worked as a trademark lawyer at Twitter. Coates now serves as president of Operation Bluebird. On the company’s homepage, its purpose is stated plainly: to reclaim trademarks Elon Musk relinquished when he renamed Twitter to X and “threw the bird away on his way out.”

What Coates said about the “Tweet” mark

“They kept the word. They let go of the bird, and they let go of the tweet,” Coates wrote in an email announcement to TechCrunch. “A tweet was never a corporation. It’s one person saying something. That word survived three years of a company trying to replace it, because the public declined to stop using it. We think that tells you who it belongs to.”

The case will proceed to determine whether X retains rights to any of the contested Twitter-related marks, given that the company now operates primarily under the name X.