Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Has anyone actually signed up to tweet.app (twitter.now)? Thoughts?by lylo
- Norm Macdonald: I remember the good old days when tweeting meant ...by eddof13
- by eddof13
- Surely by literally saying "formerly Twitter", this is an admission of non-use, thus invalidating the trademark on the term as it is not just "not used for anything" but is explicitly being distanced from by X in writing.by TheRealPomax
- Not really. Think of all of the corporate rebrandings of product lines for a future one to re-use that name.
Ex. Google Wallet -> Android Pay -> Google Pay -> Google Wallet [1]
A big difference here is that X has been pretty clear on it has no intent to launch a product called Twitter. I doubt you can find similar statements from Google saying they'd never launch a Google Wallet after the Android Pay rebrand.
by lesuorac - Decision from the judge "Issuance of the injunction precluding Bluebird's use of the Twitter-formative marks is contingent on X Corp.'s posting of a $500,000 bond."
Both X Corp. and Bluebird have asked to go to court on Nov 2027.
by Rygian - Looks like there is now a tweet.new (not the same as twitter.com ) run by Project Bluebird (not the same as Bluesky). Very confusing.
The "Trust Dial" seems a new concept to be fair. Then again, it's just a concept and possibly AI generated like the rest of the page. I wonder what trust score would the website assign to itself at that point.
by thih9 - twitter.new --> redirects to --> tweet.appby yboris
- tweet.app. Tweet.new, confusingly, is a redirect to Twitter.by rsynnott
- It always made more sense to call these tiny texts as "tweets" rather than "toots" (mastodon) or "status update" (generic) so it would be good having the right to use that term as public domain.
There have been worse names for this kind of updates in the past. At some point in time was common to "finger" someone online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finger_(protocol)
by nunobrito - Microblogging.
That's the original term.
by pmlnr - Do you have to finger them before you poke them?
<smoking emoji>
by IAmBroom - Some fun history on the origin of ‘tweet’:by incanus77
- Mastodon and X both switched to “posts”. Toots was the old name.by dewey
- Trademarks are use it or lose it. OLDSMOBILE, for example, is a cancelled General Motors trademark for automobiles.[1] No cars sold, no trademark.by Animats
- Actually General Motors still holds the Oldsmobile trademark and renewed it in April of last year. They don't have to sell cars to keep it, as they still sell parts related to the vehicles alongside merchandise that carries the brand's name. You still have to get a license from General Motors to feature the Oldsmobile 442 in your videogame for example.by Tanoc
- Related:
"Twitter Is Back at Twitter.now" 26.aug.2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49455791 19 comments
"New Twitter rebrands to Tweet.app after court's double-edged ruling" 06.sep.2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49581979
"Twitter" 10.dec.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46223543 11 comments
"Former Twitter Attorney Files for 'Twitter' Trademark" 09.dec.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46208672 13 comments
"US startup seeks to reclaim Twitter trademarks 'abandoned' by Musk's X" 09.dec.2025 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46203468
- Is it accurate to describe this as the public domain? I would expect that the bird logo still enjoys copyright protection, independent from its status as a trademark.
- Noby dbbk
- The final paragraph says this, among other things:
"The court ruled on a preliminary injunction request, so it’s not the final word on the merits. Still, it seems highly likely that the TWEET term and the bird logo have been freed from X’s trademark clutches. If so, it’s nice to get some cultural assets back into the public domain"
Seems kind of dubious to say the least.
by camkego - Probably not many do remember, but before this logo Twitter had a different bird logo until the company was already quite big.
If I remember correctly this logo was allegedly bought from a royalty free image platform and Twitter had no exclusive rights to it. Also there was a little outcry that the original artist just received the royalty free platform usual ridiculously small one time payment.
EDIT: The one I remember is the second one in the timeline image from the following (unfortunately ad infested) article, so apparently it was not the first one they had.
https://www.afaqs.com/news/digital/has-musk-gone-too-far-wit...
by weinzierl - > Also there was a little outcry that the original artist just received the royalty free platform usual ridiculously small one time payment.
Reminds me of Carolyn Davidson, Nike’s swoosh logo creator, who was paid $185 for the original design but was later given shares in Nike that ended up being worth a bit more. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolyn_Davidson_(graphic_desi...
by weisnobody - > Also there was a little outcry that the original artist just received the royalty free platform usual ridiculously small one time payment.
I mean, if I tell you I'm to sell something to you for 5 dollars and you will be allowed to do this or that with it, and you give me the 5 dollars and then do this or that, it's a bit ridiculous to then have an "outcry" that you were successfull at doing this or that so you owe me more.
Not trying to offend but artists willing to make bird logo for cheap are a dime a dozen, which is why those site exists in the first place, and they didn't care about which one exactly which is why they went on that site to buy it; it's ot like there was any vile or unfair action being done there.
by nolok - Simon Oxley designed quite a few of the most well known animal logos in the tech world today including GitHub's Octocat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Oxleyby erk__
- I think that image really visualises how bad the x logo is
https://img-cdn.thepublive.com/filters:format(webp)/afaqs/me...
The original logos weren't great but they were more charming than X
by ChrisRR - The core reason to enforce trademarks is not to fluff the corporation that holds it but to let the public be confident in the name. So the trademark should hold for as long as a reasonable person can be confused by the new Twitter regardless of people's dislike towards Elon.
I may be biased because I still go to Twitter via twitter.com.
by blfr - I stopped going. Between the spam and the racist unmoderated AI slop cannon that is discovery there, what's the pointby parl_match
- > The core reason to enforce trademarks is not to fluff the corporation that holds it but to let the public be confident in the name.
That's something we hear often but it's not grounded in an legal reality: trademarks are purely a form of intellectual property that a person (physical or moral) can hold and it doesn't come with any attached liability: you can't hold a company accountable for violating the trust built around its brand name in past year, and the owner is free to sell the brand name to another company or change their products in a way that mislead the consumer about its quality.
In fact, should a trademark come with a promise about the quality of the product, Twitter would have lost it's trademark as soon as Elon transformed it into a disinformation machine (by breaking how the blue tick works and boosting paying account's content).
by stymaar - yeah thats what it boils down to as long as they are using twitter.com. They are also using the twitter trademark.
- > The core reason to enforce trademarks is not to fluff the corporation that holds it but to let the public be confident in the name.
Nonsense. The core reason to enforce trademarks is to prove that you have it.
The yo-yo used to be a trademark too, but the problem was what else do you call it? If the "owner" of a trademark cannot defend it, they don't have it. That's how trademark law is very different than copyright (which is implicit and automatic): You can lose a trademark even if you register it and popularise it, if you can't prove that the trademark represents your actual trade.
> [I think] the trademark should hold for as long as a reasonable person can be confused by the new Twitter regardless of people's dislike towards Elon.
That's your opinion man. Thankfully the law doesn't work that way.
I don't even know whether you mean X (the new thing that was once twitter) or tweet (the new thing that claims to will-be what twitter once was)
> I may be biased because I still go to Twitter via twitter.com.
and that didn't help in the slightest, but domain squatting is very common on the Internet.
by geocar