Federal trademark registrations can be lost or limited by inaction. In a current cautionary tale, Elon Musk’s X Corp. is fighting to defeat an attack on its registrations for TWITTER and the BLUE BIRD LOGO because of its rebranding to X.  The fight stems from basic trademark elements. Trademark rights, and any associated registrations, are created and maintained by use of that trademark in connection with the good or service. For products sold or transported in commerce, use requires the business to place the trademark on the goods, containers, displays or tags, or – where not practicable – on documents associated with he good or their sale.  For services, this requires the business use or display the trademark in the sale or advertising of the services rendered.  Domain names are challenging as it must function as a source identifier, i.e., it must be presented by the trademark owner in a manner that will be perceived by potential purchasers to indicate source and not as merely an informational indicator of the domain name address used to access a website.  When the use that creates trademark rights ceases, the registration may be at risk.  A cancellation proceeding, predicated on abandonment of the trademark can be filed administratively at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or in federal district court. But a cancellation proceeding, wherever filed, may result in a corresponding infringement suit.

On December 2, 2025, Operation Bluebird sought cancellation of several of the TWITTER and BLUE BIRD LOGO registrations owned by X Corp.  Bluebird filed the cancellation proceedings to have the registrations cancelled so its own applications for TWITTER and the BLUE BIRD LOGO could proceed towards registration.  Its applications to register the trademarks had been frustrated by the USPTO’s citation of those registrations. In support of its position that X Corp. had evidenced a clear intention to abandon and not resume use of the challenged trademarks, Operation Bluebird cited X Corp.’s own marketing and public statements. X Corp. must answer the administrative challenge by February 1, 2026.

X Corp. has responded by opening a second front.  On December 16, 2025, it filed a trademark infringement suit in Delaware against Operation Bluebird, asserting infringement of its federal-registered trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (including trademark counterfeiting), false designation of origin and unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125, Delaware Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition, Deceptive Trade Practices under Delaware Law, Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), Trademark Dilution under Delaware Law, and Copyright Infringement.  In response to the assertion of non-use, X Corp. has responded that the Twitter brand is “alive and well” and that millions of users access the X platform through the twitter.com domain and third parties refer to the X platform at twitter.

Absent some early settlement, it is likely the parties will expend considerable resources.  In part, discovery will be directed to the extent of continued use of the TWITTER and BLUE BIRD LOGO trademarks and the public statements by the company regarding its intention to cease use, such as Mr. Musk’s July 23, 2023 statement that “And soon we shall bid adieu to the Twitter brand and, gradually, all the birds.”

For most businesses, an annual review of the extent of use of its federally-registered trademark can reduce the opportunity for third parties to challenge the registration, can ensure support for needed maintenance filings showing use, can identify when new registrations are needed in light of changes to product and service offerings, and can avoid challenges resulting from a rebrand.

For an annual checklist, click here:  Annual Checklist – Registered Trademark

James E. “Jim” Hudson III is a shareholder in the firm’s Intellectual Property Law Group.  For more information contact Jim here.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions related to the case mentioned above, please contact Jim Hudson, Bill Jensen, or a member of Crain Caton’s Intellectual Property Law Practice Group.